digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at wired.com

Secret-Spilling Wikileaks Plans to Save Journalism

wired.com — After 18 months of publishing government, industry and military secrets that have sparked international scandals, led to takedown threats and briefly gotten the site banned in the United States, Assange says Wikileaks is just getting started changing the world.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bigspooon, on 07/03/2008, -2/+70I'm all for anything that will put honesty and integrity back into the presses
    • Ricky81682, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12It doesn't really put honesty and integrity back but forces the press to really as the check on secrecy, the way it is supposed to be.

      I can't wait until we find a leak about a cover-up among the mainstream press. I wonder how the press will analyze itself?
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6There have been SO MANY instances of that already.
        Judith Miller, anyone?
        The press ignores it.
    • jmkiii, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7As the fourth branch of the government, it needs to be subject to some form of check/balance.
      • evilgourmet, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3"fourth branch of government..."
        Ouch, the truth hurts.
      • userperson, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Your government branches are part of the problem, they're seldom checking or balancing so much anymore.
        I don't know about "government" but this a branch that will check. Balance will be up to the rest of the system/people.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8Wikileaks won't save journalism. It will take the place of journalism. Let's face it. Today's journalism fails miserably as the people's watchdog. Unless the news involves some tabloid-worthy scandal, it doesn't get covered.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2This doesn't have to do with putting integrity and honesty back into the press, or act as a form of check or balance on the press.

      It serves to act as a check on government secrecy. Read the article.
  • Thrilltone, on 07/03/2008, -2/+39The Internet is our only chance to hear the truth,
    since the Media are no more than shills and stooges.
    • orientis, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The Internet is comprised of various forms of Media. I would suggest that is the closest you'll ever get to truth from an external system.
    • dkapuchino, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1The internet is also a Prime source of ***** information, Conspiracy theorists, Hate filled racists, and sensationalists with their own agenda, just using the internet.
      You'll probably be able to find the truth on the internet, but will you be able to recognize it among all the lies?
  • aaaleman, on 07/03/2008, -5/+20WikiLeaks: Best idea on the Internet

    (After cracked.com, of course)
  • Ricky81682, on 07/03/2008, -2/+14The last page is really interesting. The information itself is usually too detailed or convoluted for the average person to understand, but the site is amazing for others to read and analyze.

    As they said, it's the cover-up that gets you.
  • tatis44, on 07/03/2008, -3/+16freedom of information.
    freedom of the Internet.
    No government shall control what we see or hear.

    http://www.dailyradical.org
    http://www.binaryfreedom.info
  • chaserm, on 07/04/2008, -13/+5The Zionists will get a hold of Wikileaks and corrupt it in their favor like all the other media or get closed down.
    • orientis, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8Dude I have a problem with the Zionist lobby too, but there's a time and a place, you know? Maybe this comment would have been better if it were relevant to the story and not just a chance for you to parade your agenda.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4In all fairness, his comment was relevant to the story. He is predicting that this site will eventually be coopted by the very people it is trying to bring into the sunlight.
  • orientis, on 07/04/2008, -1/+32I think this guy is a modern-day Robin Hood. Stealing information from the privileged and spreading it to the masses.

    "Imagine a world where companies and government must keep the public, or their employees, or both, happy with their plans and behavior," Assange says. "That is the world we are striving to create."

    ***** yes.
  • Xihix, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2***** sweet!
  • jmkiii, on 07/04/2008, -5/+3As the fourth branch of the government, it needs to be subject to some form of check/balance.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5This isn't meant to be a check or balance on the media, which by the way is called "the fourth estate," not the fourth branch.

      Read the article. This is a check against government secrecy and unaccountability.
    • Lukesed, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2This thing is 100% pure check.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1against government corruption, secrecy and unaccountabilty.

        Not against the press.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The Medis *is supposed to be* THE check and balance. Especially since the checks and balances in government have been destroyed.
  • Axeman20, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8If it forces governments and companies to stop and pause if what they're doing is in the best interest of their citizens and employees, then he has my full support.

    Allow me to pause and say ***** YEAH!

    With that aside we can only hope that whoever runs it is not some 'secret world organisation' for controversy's sake.
    • gak001, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Dude, it's digg - feel free to write out your profanity. If people don't want to see it, they can turn on the filter. That having been said, kudos or something... actually, I don't really know what i"m typing at this point. Too much beer and whiskey for that. Mmmm... I'm rather fond of microbrews and single malt whiskey. OH yes. indeed.
    • Sil369, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"If it forces governments and companies to stop and pause blah blah" ... nah, they just stop, pause to try and save their own asses.
      • Caffeinate, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I don't care why they stop, they just need to stop screwing over the public, lying and they need to follow the same laws that most of us have to follow. The only reason they need to save their own asses is because much of our government and large corporations have been running amok for the last 7 years and it is time to put a stop to it.
  • ricker2005, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5For all of the good this site is doing for journalism, the guy does come off as more than a bit narrow-minded. The world isn't black and white (at least not outside Digg) but this guy acts like everything should be published just because it can be. There's room for judgement calls and stuff like publishing a person's SSN is pretty damn stupid.
  • ouzome, on 07/04/2008, -9/+5If we can get NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and major newspapers to have less liberal bias . . . I'm for any kind of change.
    • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6I'd prefer no bias, myself. Except for maybe a factual bias.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -4/+5You do know that the whole myth about liberal bias in the media is generally untrue, don't you?

      The companies you named are all owned by major conglomerates, and they support the agendas of their corporate parents, which is generally the opposite of liberal.

      The only reason lots of people believe there is a liberal bias in every other outlet besides Fox News Channel is because Fox News Channel is an extremist right wing neoconservative mouth piece, and if you believe that to be "the right" then anything else is left.
      • ouzome, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Phil - you went on one too many tours.
      • Caffeinate, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1He knows, it just sounds good to call it liberal because if they criticize someone in government he can cry about hippie liberals are. As long as they support rich white neocon males, and bash everyone else, then they are just telling the truth.

        I'll get you a tissue, ouzome, so you can wipe off those hot tears and go screw somebody over just because you are oppressed by the liberal reality.
  • poiuytrewq44, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2This has been my favorite site for months. Also, they didn't take it down if you knew enough about MS-DOS to get the ip address :D
    • FLarsen, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Well, one who talks about knowing enough about MS-DOS should know the difference between it and the (32bit/64bit) windows command prompt. They're not the same.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Unless he's still using MS-DOS. Maybe the best computer he could afford was an 80286 or 386 based desktop.
      • FLarsen, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Of course, that is a possibility. But he is presenting it in a way that makes MS-DOS seem like the only option, which it is not, and neither is it the most practical.

        Also, he is not talking about himself, but "you".
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Not to mention, it isn't really "MS-DOS", but the TCP/IP suite of tools that allows one to locate an IP address, and that has nothing to do with MS DOS, exclusively. However, if they removed the domain name from the name server registries, it doesn't matter what tools you know about.
      • poiuytrewq44, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1So I had a freudian slip. Sue me.
      • Caffeinate, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You can use linux, OS/2 and any flavor of MacOS to also obtain that information - DNS query over port 53 FTW.
    • dkapuchino, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1http://www.tracert.com/resolver.html
      Enjoy.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Yes, and you can just type "tracert www.whatever.com" in a windows command prompt, or "traceroute www.whatever.com" in any other command line to get a report back of every hop between your client and whatever other host or client.

        However, if the domain name has been removed from the name resolultion servers, it will not trace any route whatsoever.

        Once you cannot resolve a name to an IP address, it doesn't matter what you type.

        The best you can do is whois to hopefully find the registrar's records for that domain name, and then maybe query their name servers to find the IP address. But if it was removed from the primary registrar, you are not going to be able to find an IP address by using the host name.
  • RRJackson, on 07/04/2008, -10/+4Publishing secrets about the vulnerability of U.S. weapons systems is a lot worse than "irresponsible." Looks like a pretty good reason to start showing the Wikileaks folks how extraordinary rendition works. Then maybe some photos of them being interrogated at undisclosed locations can "leak" onto the Internet.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Actually, if there are inherent vulnerabilities of US weapons systems, as in flaws, and the pentagon knows about them but is protecting a contractor by keeping them secret, and soldiers die because of that, then I think it is about time someone brings those flaws to light, before a soldier is killed because of a flaw in the weapon system he is using.

      It was leaks that prevented the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle from going into production before they worked out the problems with vulnerable armor. I'm sure that saved many lives.
      • RRJackson, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2If, if, if...why don't you stick to the facts and stop rolling out plot points from made-for-cable Kelsey Grammar movies? They published an operating manual about a guided weapons system that warned the operators of its vulnerabilities, thus helping our enemies develop tactics to minimize its effectiveness. They're guilty of espionage and/or sedition and should be treated as war criminals.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2RRJackson, I don't know what your hangup is with Kelsey Grammar, unless you are a closeted homosexual or something.

        That scenario you describe has only been reported on Fox News Channel.

        WHAT guided weapons system was that? Tell me, you don't even need to use the designated official terminology, you can use the marketing name for it.

        Do you ever read Jane's Defence Weekly? Have you ever been to an AUSA arms show in downtown DC? Was your father ever commander of an Army Depot that supplied 90% of the supplies to USAEUR?

        I don't talk out of my ass like the typical nascar loving fox news viewer. I've grown up in the world of weapons systems and defense acquisitions.
      • RRJackson, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Hey douchebag:

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

        And if you RTFA you'd know what weapons system. FTA:

        "Wikileaks also published a classified operating manual for the U.S. military's guided bombs known as the Joint Direct Attack Munitions or JDAM that included information on its known weaknesses."

        Now you might wanna go pack yourself another bowl, "PhilLesh69," and think really hard next time before you have an outburst.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2You're giving me a link to the internet movie database?

        You do know the difference between movie and reality, don't you?

        If there are weaknesses in the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which is simply just a retrofitting of gravity bombs with an either laser or GPS guided tail fin mechanism, then maybe there is something wrong with that retrofitting. I do know that it costs about $28,000 to put a JDAM on a WWII era gravity bomb. Perhaps it isn't perfect, and it might kill either service members or civilians.

        I do know that Saddam Hussein understood the weakness of laser guided JDAMs, and that is why he had trenches dug all around Bagdhad before we invaded, and filled them with oil and lit them on fire. Because he thought that this would decrease the accuracy of JDAMs. I guess he didn't know that we had converted to GPS guided JDAMs.

        SO, if you think rationally, you know that the known weaknesses of the JDAM had already been fixed by using GPS rather than line of sight guidance, And even our enemies had already known about the laser guided version's weaknesses long before wikileak "leaked" that information.

        Don't call me a douchebag for trying to enlighten you on an issue I grew up understanding, and have a much more intimate knowledge about than you do. We agree on other topics (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Wants_to_ ... ) but you obviously have been misled by a biased media outlet on this particular topic.

        I grew up in the Army. I grew up on Schofield Barracks. I attended every organization day and Armed Forces day. When my father was commander of an Army Depot, I even saw the MLRS brought out before it was even an official military system. I also attended a half dozen Association of United States Army arms shows in DC, where I saw the early versions of the M1 and M2 systems, and lots of other weapons systems that most people don't even know about. I sat in an SUV that had an 88mm cannon on a turret, and the sales guy shook the entire chassis while I clicked a cursor on someone walking through the exhibition hall, and the gun stayed locked onto the person even with the sales guy shaking the SUV.

        I don't need to "go pack myself another bowl". But you might want to.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1besides, your IMDB link only reinforces another comment I made on this digg, about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It doesn't say anything about a leak that undermines national security or lends to the enemy in any way.

        Oh, I get it, you think I was talking about "the pentagon wars" when I mentioned that the M2 was stalled due to leaks.

        No, I wasn't. I was talking about actual leaks by pentagon acquisition officers, while my father was Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, under the Chief of Staff of the Army. The DECSLOG office didn't really deal with any of that, they were the last answer about where things went, and how to get it there.

        But they knew who was approving contracts, and they knew how corrupt it was, they knew about the revolving door with defense contractors.

      • RRJackson, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Stop smoking so much cheeba and you'll be able to follow along. The IMDb link was to explain to you what the Kelsey Grammar reference was about. The article that you didn't read that this Digg comments page is supposed to be referencing is where you'll find the info on the weapons system information that was leaked. Light up another one. Your father must be really proud.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1You must really like fluffy kind bud, because you keep bringing it up.

        I haven't smoked weed since I was in College, almost 20 years ago.

        I sense that you do not know what "leaking" information means. There's a huge difference between espionage and leaking information.

        Leaking information is about someone discovering corrupt or illegal activity, an American citizen employed by the government, exposing that information to the American people and the press. Espionage is the secret transfer of information or technology to a foreign government.

        If you fear an open society, you do not belong here.

        My father is very proud of me. I even go to West Point reunions with him.
    • RRJackson, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Years ago a communications professor of mine said something in a lecture that stuck with me. He said that "Classified" doesn't usually mean "Secret." What it usually means is that the average person doesn't know about it, but could probably find out some details if they wanted to dig. He continued that lecture by saying that they don't execute spies based on how much damage they did to the country. You don't get a reprieve for only divulging things the enemy already knew. They execute spies to send a message to anyone else who's thinking about divulging Classified information. It doesn't matter how much damage these dweebs did. The important thing is that the United States makes an example of them. Hopefully President McCain will have them tracked down, captured and tortured for a few years in one of our off-shore detention centers. Then they can tell their story on CNN and hopefully the brutality of their punishment will serve as a warning. The example needs to be made. Majestatis crimes illud est quod adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem ejus committitur.
  • toastgodsupreme, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Looks like Wikileaks wants to change directions and become a pay service for their information.

    Bah, fail. That destroys the concept which makes it so valuable and intriguing to people. Why would I post a classified document to a site that's going to sell it to some reporter for profit when I can do that myself?
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Because in many cases, when you attempt to sell that information to a reporter, you are putting yourself at risk.

      Just remember the Valerie Plame leak case. Journalists went to jail in order to keep from disclosing their source.

      If you were leaking sensitive information about a secret Russian weapons sale to Iran, would you rather leak it anonymously, or profit from it and possibly end up in jail or the victim of a hit squad?
  • BECoole, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6This guy will eventually publish something that someone like Mugabe or the Russian Mob doesn't like and he will get a too-late lesson in discretion.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1And then someone will fill his shoes.
  • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2If they manage to not turn into a tabloid like thesmokinggun did, I bet they can.
  • philodygmn, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2The problem with reporter subscriptions is articles that come out just before Wikileaks publishes something will be shown as possible subscribers, eventually negating the anonymity to pursue the stories in the first place, not to mention the lag time this introduces to stories' publication. Timely news is responsible for a huge amount of impact, and a subscription idea ruins that by putting the site under financial onus to subscribing journalists' indefinite review period so as not to ruin their scoops. If Wikileaks opened a pledge drive, I doubt they'd make too little to cover their costs and then some! Capitulating the basis of the site for lack of informed interested reviewers is a mistake! Altering the bright line between information and its availability is a BAD MOVE!
  • RickyBarnes1960, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3An authentically open society or culture only works if all are committed to consistent honesty and mutual respect. I would like nothing less than such a culture, however, it is only a minority in human cultures who are committed in such ways.

    They are called "secrets" only because some have something to hide and reason to hide it. As long as there is reason to fear one another and shame for our own behaviors, an open society is a mere dream.

    Still, any steps toward such a culture are welcome in my book. Bad behavior ought to always be exposed - no matter the perpetrator.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1People fail to recognize that it was no secret, amongst governments that Germany was seeking nuclear fission, or that America was, as well. Even the soviets had their spies within the Manhattan project. The US and British sent special teams to attack Germany's heavy water plants and other projects.

      George Koval infiltrated the manhattan project. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for nuclear espionage.

      Secrets are not meant to hide strategy, tactics or technology from other nations. Secrets are meant to prevent the voters from knowing what those in power are doing.

      The whole "National Security" thing is just a smokescreen to keep us scared and unwilling to ask questions, and even to become angry towards anyone who is working in our favor.
    • dkapuchino, on 07/04/2008, -2/+265 years ago, my grandparents hid the fact they were jews in Nazi Europe. They sure as hell had something to hide, and a reason to hide it. Now Imagine wikileaks publishing a list of all known Jews back then.
      65 years ago, the Allies were able to defeat Nazi germany, among other things, due to the ability of the Brits to crack the German's enigma machine. Now imagine wikileaks publishing that we have broken the german code, and can intercept their communications.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Wow, that is just a red herring.

        Wikileaks isn't about exposing normal citizens to government powers that wish to exterminate them. WIkileaks is about exposing government corruption and violations of laws and constitutional restrictions.

        For your argument to be valid, about your jewish grandparents, it would have to be discussing a government website that was going to expose ordinary citizens "secrets".

        We aren't talking about that at all.

        In fact, wikileaks would probably expose any efforts to expose everyday citizen's religious affiliation, so people would be aware of the dangers that implies.

        Plus, cracking enigma would probably not be something to leak. That would be a valid and legitimate activity of our government.

        You do know what the whole concept of leaking government information is actually about, don't you? I know Fox News will say it is about exposing every secret and every activity, but the real purpose of leaking information is to expose CORRUPT or ILLEGAL activity. Honestly, if you can't figure that out, you are dense and misinformed. If you really think there are government employees just waiting to destroy America by exposing valid secrets and legitimately private information, you need to go buy a roll of tin foil and fashion yourself a hat. People that leak information about illegal activities do so with a very heavy heart, but they realize that they have to expose corruption or illegal activities for the good of the nation.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2As more people become computer literate, they start to realize that we have been born into the matrix. Uncensored information is the red pill.
    • DrDreyfus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Really?

      So you agree with Scooter Libby for exposing Valerie Plame, the former CIA spy?
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2No more than I would agree with posting your social security number, and I get your point.
        I was referring to the propaganda when the victors write the history.
        i.e. "Lincoln freed the slaves" instead of "Lincoln was against states' rights"
        "Or America saved the world in WW2" without mentioning that the U.S. put Japanese Americans in concentration camps.
        see also "Refer Madness" and the lost white house e-mails.
        Who is to stop a cover up when the criminal gets to claim that any information regarding the crime in "sensitive" and must be secret "for National Security".

  • MrRobotoSki, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Now this is freedom of speech!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.