WikiLeaks to target major U.S. bank next
- Thread starter atreides
- Start date
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
Matt Taibbi is licking his chops right now.
Wikileaks isn't a whistle blowing website. It is a site where stolen information is posted without consequence or legal remedy. Just because banks are the new evil enemy in the USA doesn't mean internal documents should be released unless they show criminal misdeeds.
Hacking is still a crime last time I checked.
Hacking is still a crime last time I checked.
- Joined
- 12/4/09
- Messages
- 146
- Points
- 28
wow. another low blow for goldies. most likely it's them.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
It would not be very hard to leak a vast number of documents from a bank, the email systems are particularly vulnerable. Not very hard if you work in the right area and have the motivation.
I find myself in two minds over the whole wikileaks affair, and not as black and white as Anthony. Indeed I observe that generally almost everyone who is not American can see good in there somewhere, but regardless of political view, most Americans are strongly against it.
Governments have been extending secrecy both through legal means and through anti-legal mechanisms. That includes Guantanamo bay at one end where people are put outside the legal system, and the use of private contractors who can hide behind "commercial confidentiality".
Any fool who has had even the most basic education in infosec knows that the more people you have involved in security, you hit a maximum and go downhill fast.
Under Bush & Cheney, security clearance became required for a vast array of jobs, which in their own silly evangelical heads meant they were more secure.
Basic set theory tells us otherwise, since more people are now on the inside. By making more people trusted, they made it certain that something like this would happen. Wikileaks is a medium, not the message. If three million people have access to classified material you don't have secrets, you actually have a bigger audience than most commercial website ever achieve.
Also, having worked as a journalist (yes, I wrote and did security at the same time), I will share that vast amounts of stuff never gets out anywhere. Firstly because it is shit dull or obscure. You might care who Madonna is sleeping with, but a minor exec in a midscale software firm ?
But there's other things that informally get surpressed. I watched with mild horror one day when live news carried out an interview with an aviation expert where the journo asked "why don't you do security measure X". The expert thought it through and explained that yes it would work but if used wrongly would cause flying disasters on an epic scale. That part of the interview didn't make the next rotation on the rolling news programme.
Some of that has been applied to Wikileaks, but probably not all that well, since unless you know an area well you can't tell what will cause harm.
However, we all know that 'security' is routinely used as an excuse for people in power to cover up their misdeeds. An egregious example is Prince Charles, who routinely sends armed thugs with diplomatic immunity to barge his way to the front of queues at things like Ski lifts citing 'security' even though no serious threat has been made him. If you were to photograph such a thing, you'd risk finding yourself in hospital then jail.
I find myself in two minds over the whole wikileaks affair, and not as black and white as Anthony. Indeed I observe that generally almost everyone who is not American can see good in there somewhere, but regardless of political view, most Americans are strongly against it.
Governments have been extending secrecy both through legal means and through anti-legal mechanisms. That includes Guantanamo bay at one end where people are put outside the legal system, and the use of private contractors who can hide behind "commercial confidentiality".
Any fool who has had even the most basic education in infosec knows that the more people you have involved in security, you hit a maximum and go downhill fast.
Under Bush & Cheney, security clearance became required for a vast array of jobs, which in their own silly evangelical heads meant they were more secure.
Basic set theory tells us otherwise, since more people are now on the inside. By making more people trusted, they made it certain that something like this would happen. Wikileaks is a medium, not the message. If three million people have access to classified material you don't have secrets, you actually have a bigger audience than most commercial website ever achieve.
Also, having worked as a journalist (yes, I wrote and did security at the same time), I will share that vast amounts of stuff never gets out anywhere. Firstly because it is shit dull or obscure. You might care who Madonna is sleeping with, but a minor exec in a midscale software firm ?
But there's other things that informally get surpressed. I watched with mild horror one day when live news carried out an interview with an aviation expert where the journo asked "why don't you do security measure X". The expert thought it through and explained that yes it would work but if used wrongly would cause flying disasters on an epic scale. That part of the interview didn't make the next rotation on the rolling news programme.
Some of that has been applied to Wikileaks, but probably not all that well, since unless you know an area well you can't tell what will cause harm.
However, we all know that 'security' is routinely used as an excuse for people in power to cover up their misdeeds. An egregious example is Prince Charles, who routinely sends armed thugs with diplomatic immunity to barge his way to the front of queues at things like Ski lifts citing 'security' even though no serious threat has been made him. If you were to photograph such a thing, you'd risk finding yourself in hospital then jail.
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
There was just a post on a SocGen trader being arrested for violating trade secrets. Suppose some trader or hacker broke into the system and sent the code to Julian instead. Who is going to be legally or financially responsible for this criminal act?
9/11 happened for a lot of reasons. One thing that aided in the act was the fact that information is not freely shared between agencies. In an effort to remedy this we opened up information across the board. This had the negative effect of allowing a large amount of people access to this info.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I also completely support whistle blowing. It is a means for insiders to speak up when something is criminal. Leaking diplomatic cables that give frank and honest assessments of political situations is neither criminal nor 'whistleblowing'. It is meant to humiliate and hurt the USA.
I would also not categorize this as only a USA issue since the UK as well as China are shown to be making some pretty embarrassing statements.
My problem with Wikileaks is that there is no accountability. This is not freedom of information, this is targeted illegal activity. It is also incredibly biased and focused on the USA.
Julian is not a US citizen. He has no rights or freedoms under our laws. He is not a journalist. Whoever his sources are are breaking the law at the least and treasonous at the best. When he is caught and he will be caught I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.
** Mind you I am not saying the government has a right to break the law or hide information, but I do not agree that stealing private information should be championed. Just because people enjoy gossip and some people get joy out of the USA looking bad does not mean something is right.**
9/11 happened for a lot of reasons. One thing that aided in the act was the fact that information is not freely shared between agencies. In an effort to remedy this we opened up information across the board. This had the negative effect of allowing a large amount of people access to this info.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I also completely support whistle blowing. It is a means for insiders to speak up when something is criminal. Leaking diplomatic cables that give frank and honest assessments of political situations is neither criminal nor 'whistleblowing'. It is meant to humiliate and hurt the USA.
I would also not categorize this as only a USA issue since the UK as well as China are shown to be making some pretty embarrassing statements.
My problem with Wikileaks is that there is no accountability. This is not freedom of information, this is targeted illegal activity. It is also incredibly biased and focused on the USA.
Julian is not a US citizen. He has no rights or freedoms under our laws. He is not a journalist. Whoever his sources are are breaking the law at the least and treasonous at the best. When he is caught and he will be caught I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.
** Mind you I am not saying the government has a right to break the law or hide information, but I do not agree that stealing private information should be championed. Just because people enjoy gossip and some people get joy out of the USA looking bad does not mean something is right.**
oh.. I think there is accountability right? the person who leaked and/or borrowed the information was arrested and might be court-martialed... Pfc. Bradley Mannings I think is his name?
Wikileaks themselves don't commit illegal acts I thought.. A third party obtains the information somehow, and Wikileaks just facilitates the dissemination?
Apparently Bradley isn't the only person doing it, but yes, he is being caught.
I think an argument could be made that Wikileaks knowingly acquires illegally gotten information and distributes it. Kind of like buying stolen property.
Julian is far from an innocent guy posting stuff he didn't know was stolen or illegally acquired.
I think an argument could be made that Wikileaks knowingly acquires illegally gotten information and distributes it. Kind of like buying stolen property.
Julian is far from an innocent guy posting stuff he didn't know was stolen or illegally acquired.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
There was just a post on a SocGen trader being arrested for violating trade secrets. Suppose some trader or hacker broke into the system and sent the code to Julian instead. Who is going to be legally or financially responsible for this criminal act?
That's a good question...
The law here is really rather clear, intentionally so, and Mr. Assange can be prosecuted under the laws of at least two dozen countries. He can be sued for damages, as can the companies like Amazon.com who have helped him.
What's interesting to me is that he is not being prosecuted for a range of offences ranging from copyright through espionage, theft and for all I know littering. They've come up with such a transparently implausible case of rape that even people who do not sympathise with his position see it as just silly.
Also course there is a difference between illegal and wrong.
If SocGen code demonstrated that they were doing something dishonest or illegal, then that is different to sharing a bit of clever code.
An important principle in intellectual property law covering 'secrets' is that they must be secret.
Any IP lawyer will tell you (like they have told me) that if you allow everyone in your company access to something, and don't act as if you are treating it with care, you cannot claim this was all that secret. That means even if you know your security precautions can be overcome, having no useful ones at all screws your case. Since the US government allows more people access to 'secret' data than read any three national newspapers put together, they fail that test big time.
"Leaking diplomatic cables that give frank and honest assessments of political situations is neither criminal nor 'whistleblowing'. It is meant to humiliate and hurt the USA. "
I don't really understand what he thinks he is trying to achieve, and don't believe anyone who thinks they know. Also, what is interesting is that I've yet to hear of one single thing I didn't know already. China is pissed at N. Korea, Prince Andrew is arrogant, the Saudis fear Iranian nukes, US staff spy on UN delegates. News ? No.
If you like I can demonstrate complete with source code how you can catch people who were providing the info to Wikileaks before they would have had the chance to get it out of the building. It's not hard. This can be done without in any way impacting agencies ability to share data.
My problem with Wikileaks is that there is no accountability.
Same with any other journalism.
This is not freedom of information, this is targeted illegal activity.
Go drinking with any decent journalist, every single one of them has broken serious laws to get to the truth. One ex-colleague of mine is quietly proud that major laws had to be changed because it was discovered he hadn't broken any.
It is also incredibly biased and focused on the USA.
That's because US information security is shit. This is a country where the guy in charge of IT for Homeland Security was found to have made up his qualifications after he was appointed. People get picked for security posts because of their views on abortion, explicitly asked during the interview. If you restrict important jobs to people whose professed religious affinity is to one where understanding things, even their own religion is seen as a vice, you are screwed.
Julian is not a US citizen. He has no rights or freedoms under our laws.
Firstly, that is a debatable point.
To the extent that it is true, that alone justifies his acts.
Under British law (or French or Chinese) he would have those rights and freedoms accorded to a citizen. I really can think of only two ex-states that ever took the same position, you don't want to be either.
If you take the position that Mr. Assange has no rights under American law, then it follows that he has no duties either.
That's the problem with rights. Rights are part of a contract between the state and the individual. If a state does not keep it's end of the bargain, don't complain if the individual acts against it.
He is not a journalist.
Yes he is.
He writes stuff and publishes it. QED
If you go down the road of saying a) that certain rights only ascribe to journalists, and b) journalists have to have 'official' status you reach the level of China or Iran very quickly.
Whoever his sources are are breaking the law at the least and treasonous at the best.
Yes they are probably breaking the law, and I assume that they are breaking laws lumped atogether as 'treason'. However breaking the treason laws is not 100% the same as betraying your country. Most of these laws are used to protect important figures from embarrassment and occasionally from jail themselves.
When he is caught and he will be caught I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Trying to frame him for rape ain't the way though is it ?
I do not agree that stealing private information should be championed.
A good test for any position is whether you would want it applied to you.
I have a lot of private information on people, maybe I have some on you, maybe I don't.
Maybe that info can stop you getting a job if whispered in the right ear. Maybe that info is true, maybe it's not.
If so minded, I could arrange it so that I could damage the employment prospect of a group I did not like. Moslems, women, black people, fat people, people who like soccer, people of Italian or Spanish descent...
That would need some adaptations to our database since it does not explicitly store the necessary data, but the database is of course private property.
Would you want such discrimination exposed by Wikileaks ?
Even though it's private data, owned by a foreign corporation ?
That's a good question...
The law here is really rather clear, intentionally so, and Mr. Assange can be prosecuted under the laws of at least two dozen countries. He can be sued for damages, as can the companies like Amazon.com who have helped him.
What's interesting to me is that he is not being prosecuted for a range of offences ranging from copyright through espionage, theft and for all I know littering. They've come up with such a transparently implausible case of rape that even people who do not sympathise with his position see it as just silly.
Also course there is a difference between illegal and wrong.
If SocGen code demonstrated that they were doing something dishonest or illegal, then that is different to sharing a bit of clever code.
An important principle in intellectual property law covering 'secrets' is that they must be secret.
Any IP lawyer will tell you (like they have told me) that if you allow everyone in your company access to something, and don't act as if you are treating it with care, you cannot claim this was all that secret. That means even if you know your security precautions can be overcome, having no useful ones at all screws your case. Since the US government allows more people access to 'secret' data than read any three national newspapers put together, they fail that test big time.
"Leaking diplomatic cables that give frank and honest assessments of political situations is neither criminal nor 'whistleblowing'. It is meant to humiliate and hurt the USA. "
I don't really understand what he thinks he is trying to achieve, and don't believe anyone who thinks they know. Also, what is interesting is that I've yet to hear of one single thing I didn't know already. China is pissed at N. Korea, Prince Andrew is arrogant, the Saudis fear Iranian nukes, US staff spy on UN delegates. News ? No.
If you like I can demonstrate complete with source code how you can catch people who were providing the info to Wikileaks before they would have had the chance to get it out of the building. It's not hard. This can be done without in any way impacting agencies ability to share data.
My problem with Wikileaks is that there is no accountability.
Same with any other journalism.
This is not freedom of information, this is targeted illegal activity.
Go drinking with any decent journalist, every single one of them has broken serious laws to get to the truth. One ex-colleague of mine is quietly proud that major laws had to be changed because it was discovered he hadn't broken any.
It is also incredibly biased and focused on the USA.
That's because US information security is shit. This is a country where the guy in charge of IT for Homeland Security was found to have made up his qualifications after he was appointed. People get picked for security posts because of their views on abortion, explicitly asked during the interview. If you restrict important jobs to people whose professed religious affinity is to one where understanding things, even their own religion is seen as a vice, you are screwed.
Julian is not a US citizen. He has no rights or freedoms under our laws.
Firstly, that is a debatable point.
To the extent that it is true, that alone justifies his acts.
Under British law (or French or Chinese) he would have those rights and freedoms accorded to a citizen. I really can think of only two ex-states that ever took the same position, you don't want to be either.
If you take the position that Mr. Assange has no rights under American law, then it follows that he has no duties either.
That's the problem with rights. Rights are part of a contract between the state and the individual. If a state does not keep it's end of the bargain, don't complain if the individual acts against it.
He is not a journalist.
Yes he is.
He writes stuff and publishes it. QED
If you go down the road of saying a) that certain rights only ascribe to journalists, and b) journalists have to have 'official' status you reach the level of China or Iran very quickly.
Whoever his sources are are breaking the law at the least and treasonous at the best.
Yes they are probably breaking the law, and I assume that they are breaking laws lumped atogether as 'treason'. However breaking the treason laws is not 100% the same as betraying your country. Most of these laws are used to protect important figures from embarrassment and occasionally from jail themselves.
When he is caught and he will be caught I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Trying to frame him for rape ain't the way though is it ?
I do not agree that stealing private information should be championed.
A good test for any position is whether you would want it applied to you.
I have a lot of private information on people, maybe I have some on you, maybe I don't.
Maybe that info can stop you getting a job if whispered in the right ear. Maybe that info is true, maybe it's not.
If so minded, I could arrange it so that I could damage the employment prospect of a group I did not like. Moslems, women, black people, fat people, people who like soccer, people of Italian or Spanish descent...
That would need some adaptations to our database since it does not explicitly store the necessary data, but the database is of course private property.
Would you want such discrimination exposed by Wikileaks ?
Even though it's private data, owned by a foreign corporation ?
Daniel Duffy
C++ author, trainer
- Joined
- 10/4/07
- Messages
- 10,469
- Points
- 648
"I think an argument could be made that Wikileaks knowingly acquires illegally gotten information and distributes it. Kind of like buying stolen property"
That is one possible opinion and would need to stand up in a court of law. Is Wl a source of leaks, or just a conduit? Compare to Watergate?
And then you have your First Amendment.
I am not a lawyer, but outrage is not the same as jurisprudence.
That is one possible opinion and would need to stand up in a court of law. Is Wl a source of leaks, or just a conduit? Compare to Watergate?
And then you have your First Amendment.
I am not a lawyer, but outrage is not the same as jurisprudence.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
Interpol has placed Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks whistle-blowing organization, on a so-called red notice wanted list to seek his arrest to answer allegations of sexual misbehavior by a Swedish prosecutor, according to the global police organization’s Web site on Wednesday.
WikiLeaks Chief Is Put on Interpol List - NYTimes.com
WikiLeaks Chief Is Put on Interpol List - NYTimes.com
- Joined
- 9/5/10
- Messages
- 397
- Points
- 38
So, they are framing him? What are the odds of him actually doing this JUST after the publications vs. the odds of being framed??
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
The truth is that if the authorities in the US, the UK, and probably the rest of Europe want to frame someone, they can. Assuming, that is, they even want to go the legal route. Doesn't take much for them to take off the velvet gloves and reveal the iron hand.
In some instances it appears to be stuff we suspected but didn't actually know. I think the distinction is sufficiently important it has the authorities miffed at the disclosures.
Hehe, ain't that the truth. If the authorities want to get you, they have a number of weapons in their arsenal.
Amen. They don't pay decent salaries for starters. Then there's rampant favoritism and lack of professionalism.
Couldn't agree more. And there's not much of a social contract these days.
Postscript: Here is a video of an advisor to the Canadian PM advocating the assassination of Assange. I repeat: if they want to get you, they have a number of weapons at their disposal and they are not squeamish about some of the more draconian options.
With regard to the long-term impact of the Wikileak disclosures, I'm sceptical. It's a storm in a teacup. Agree with Paul Craig Roberts:
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
Why am I not surprised at this? Amazon pulls WikiLeaks plug. For a site that sold books that promotes pedophilia, airing some politicians dirty laundry should be the least of their concerns.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
@atreides, Amazon has the same problem any provider of an open service faces.
It lists >30 million books, and it's hard to see how they could check each book, and even then it raises a tricky question of whether you want Amazon to have an official role as censor. As far as I am aware this book is legal, where do you draw the line ?
Would you want me to draw that line ?
If not me, who ?
If you are going to have censorship done by anyone else but you, who do you trust ?
A good test for any power, is would you want that power in the hands of bad or stupid people ?
Amazon ain't stupid, their success shows this, but it is now a big firm, and just like in banks, the best money is paid to people who increase revenue. So the people doing the censorship for Amazon won't be their best, so will be a mix of people that other groups don't want, and that subset of people who actively like the idea of being a censor.
So you start at paedophila, which doesn't have popular support outside the clergy, and then we see the fuss over a video game where players could choose to be members of the Taliban. OK remove that, again few will complain. Then you have books which support anti-semitism and other forms of racism. Ban them ?
Shakespeare wrote an anti-semitic play, The Merchant of Venice, and more than once performance in the USA has been picketed by Jewish activitists.
This may sound a bit theoretical, but look at what Apple has done. A notable % of people only have access to things that Apple likes, and that's not just racism. They recently banned an app that provided people with info on writing apps for Android, a competing platform.
Also, the DMCA, where a copyright holder can make you take down online content, even if they don't own that content.
After the paedophile mess, you can bet that many lobby groups will now pursue Amazon to ban 'offensive' books and other content, and it will not end well. America has some fine protections on free speech, but these do not apply to the actions of a private firm, who may make a 'commercial decision' not to stock a given book, and the death of net neutrality means that you won't be able to access things AT&T or Apple don't like.
You happy with that ?
It lists >30 million books, and it's hard to see how they could check each book, and even then it raises a tricky question of whether you want Amazon to have an official role as censor. As far as I am aware this book is legal, where do you draw the line ?
Would you want me to draw that line ?
If not me, who ?
If you are going to have censorship done by anyone else but you, who do you trust ?
A good test for any power, is would you want that power in the hands of bad or stupid people ?
Amazon ain't stupid, their success shows this, but it is now a big firm, and just like in banks, the best money is paid to people who increase revenue. So the people doing the censorship for Amazon won't be their best, so will be a mix of people that other groups don't want, and that subset of people who actively like the idea of being a censor.
So you start at paedophila, which doesn't have popular support outside the clergy, and then we see the fuss over a video game where players could choose to be members of the Taliban. OK remove that, again few will complain. Then you have books which support anti-semitism and other forms of racism. Ban them ?
Shakespeare wrote an anti-semitic play, The Merchant of Venice, and more than once performance in the USA has been picketed by Jewish activitists.
This may sound a bit theoretical, but look at what Apple has done. A notable % of people only have access to things that Apple likes, and that's not just racism. They recently banned an app that provided people with info on writing apps for Android, a competing platform.
Also, the DMCA, where a copyright holder can make you take down online content, even if they don't own that content.
After the paedophile mess, you can bet that many lobby groups will now pursue Amazon to ban 'offensive' books and other content, and it will not end well. America has some fine protections on free speech, but these do not apply to the actions of a private firm, who may make a 'commercial decision' not to stock a given book, and the death of net neutrality means that you won't be able to access things AT&T or Apple don't like.
You happy with that ?
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
Let's not confuse between the two different parts of Amazon. The pedophilia book you mentioned is sold on Amazon.com, the shopping site.
The entity that pulled the plug on Wikileaks is Amazon Web Services (AWS) which Wikileaks used to host its content.
Why Amazon Dropped WikiLeaks
“AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed,” reads a company statement. WikiLeaks was not following them.”
The terms of service state that content supplied by users must be owned by the user, or the user must have the right to publish it. The terms further state that published content should not “cause injury to any person.”
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
Facing WikiLeaks Threat, Bank of America Plays Defense - NYTimes.com
A team of 15 to 20 top Bank of America officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce R. Thompson, has been overseeing a broad internal investigation — scouring thousands of documents in the event that they become public, reviewing every case where a computer has gone missing and hunting for any sign that its systems might have been compromised.
In addition to the internal team drawn from departments like finance, technology, legal and communications, the bank has brought in Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, to help manage the review. It has also sought advice from several top law firms about legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients.
A team of 15 to 20 top Bank of America officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce R. Thompson, has been overseeing a broad internal investigation — scouring thousands of documents in the event that they become public, reviewing every case where a computer has gone missing and hunting for any sign that its systems might have been compromised.
In addition to the internal team drawn from departments like finance, technology, legal and communications, the bank has brought in Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, to help manage the review. It has also sought advice from several top law firms about legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients.