ITH Poker Forum

[Bugsbunny]

Special Report: STD fears sparked case against WikiLeaks boss | Reuters I'm quoting from a comment to tha above article.

Let’s see two women approached him at separate times and invited him to spend the night with them at their apartment and he had sex with each of them, though in one case the condom split. He parted amicably with both, but then when they couldn’t get in touch with him and found out about each other they went to the police who filed a report. The prosecutor then decided charges were unwarranted until the women got a lawyer and pressed for another prosecutor to get involved.

His British barrister stated that he had remained in Sweden for 30 days to help resolve these questions so if he was available and they couldn’t get to the bottom of this in 30 days (if true) then I’m not sure they deserve to extradite him. It also sounds very very fishy that this all comes to fruition when the furor over the WikiLeaks release is at its height. If you can tell me they aren’t related with a straight face (or some evidence) then I might believe you (not).

And that pretty much sums it up. He was in Sweden for an extended period originally, when the original prosecution was dropped. Now they want him back again. The Swedish prosecutor says she won't go to GB to question him. Why not? Something stinks, and it's not the Smörgåsbord.

[Bugsbunny]

Have I mentioned recently that we have just established a new USCYBERCOM in order to combat foreign attacks on our infrastructure?

U.S. code-cracking agency works as if compromised | Reuters

NSA considers it's networks as compromised. A quote from the end

A third-party inspection of major computer systems found there was none of consequence "that is not penetrated by some adversary that allows the adversary, the outsider, to bleed all the information at will,"

So, again, we're certainly not trying to hide the leaked information from our adversaries - they already have it.

[Bullajami]

We have lots of adversaries. Not all of them are capable of cracking our secure networks.

[Bugsbunny]

Granted, and I realize that. However how many of the ones that don't have indirect access because they have access to someone that does. Now it's true that that means that the access they have is filtered to suit the purposes of whoever is feeding them information, but it's also possible that they would have multiple sources.

There's no guarantees, once a system is compromised the information can potentially end up anywhere, especially if it's compromised via multiple points.

Even if the adversaries don't know best practice is to assume that they do. And I'm obviously talking in generalities here. I can think of scenarios where they absolutely wouldn't know, mostly because the time line is too short, and/or the circle of people that really do know is limited enough and the information simply isn't available in any medium that's accessible to the outside in any way shape or form.

[Bullajami]

Like most things, 'it depends'. I feel pretty confident that neither al-Qaida nor the Taliban are getting data from our intelligence networks passed to them by a foreign government that may have penetrated said networks. Of course, the data that would interest them is what we know about them, and they seem to operate as if we know everything about them, so I'm not sure it would make a difference if they did get data passed to them.

On the other hand, should the Chinese decide to retake Taiwan by force, I feel pretty confident they'd know exactly what our response would be.

Intelligence sharing among foreign governments is not terribly widespread. If you tell someone the information that you have, they can usually figure out how you got it, and most intelligence services do not like to advertise their capabilities. And like any secret, the more people who know, the less likely it is to be a secret. If you have hacked into the US networks undetected, you'd probably like to keep it that way for as long as possible. Sharing happens, of course, and (as you said) absent knowing for sure you're better off presuming your information is being shared. This would be in fairly low quantities, though, in hard copy or face-to-face transmissions. Nobody is going to steal from our network and then presume theirs is secure.

We also benefit from the saturation factor. Our own intelligence community is overwhelmed by the volume of reporting that goes into the system on a daily basis. There's no way that a foreign service would have the manpower to (translate?), read and comprehend the volume of the reports they could pull down if they had complete access. They would be limited to targeted searches.

The most comprehensive intelligence sharing agreement is among the English speaking nations - which, of course, broadens our network security issues.

[Bullajami]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/ja ... -subpoenas

I see this morning that a US Grand Jury has subpoenaed Twitter for account information for 5 individuals suspected of involvement in the classified documents release via wikileaks. I haven't really decided if I like the government's tack here. If it's being used specifically to build the case against the person(s) suspected of taking the documents off the government's network, then I am OK with it. Those people broke the law.

If they are looking to create trouble for the people who subsequently publicized the info, I am not. While I wish the information wasn't made public, the 'media' has a right to publish it if they have it.

In either case, I am NOT OK with this tidbit:

It also ordered Twitter not to notify the targets of the subpoena...

The government should not have the right to subpoena private information about individuals without them knowing about it. Is this common? Can the government order a bank to hand over the banking records of an individual without the individual being informed? If so, I don't like it one little bit.

[darvon]

It's a Patriot Act detail:

"A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches."

Can the ACLU get off it's butt and get this idiot law overturned? or mobilze a vote against it? What happened when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.

[nsidestrate]

The government should not have the right to subpoena private information about individuals without them knowing about it. Is this common? Can the government order a bank to hand over the banking records of an individual without the individual being informed? If so, I don't like it one little bit.

Lisa says that if the target is being investigated for criminal conduct, they do not have to inform the target of the investigation. We're not sure if they can force the bank or twitter to hide the information, but its possible they could trump up some up kind of obstruction charge if they didn't keep it secret.

[Bugsbunny]

Wikileaks' Assange charged in US with 'treason' | THINQ.co.uk

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been accused of "treason" by a Florida man seeking damages for distress caused by the site's revelations about the US Government.

David Pitchford, a Florida trailer park resident, names Assange and WikiLeaks as defendants in a personal injury suit filed with the Florida Southern District Court in Miami.

In the complaint filed on 6th January, Pitchford alleges that Assange's negligence has caused "hypertension", "depression" and "living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke" as a result of living "in fear of being on the brink of another nucliar [sic] WAR".

Just for good measure, it also alleges that Assange and WikiLeaks are guilty of "terorism [sic], espionage and treason".

[janeg]

Enterprising US blogger Superkuh, who claims to have spoken to Pitchford over the phone, says the Florida man boasted that he once sued Osama Bin Laden

I guess his success with that suit went to Mr Pitchford's head.

[janeg]

In either case, I am NOT OK with this tidbit:

It also ordered Twitter not to notify the targets of the subpoena...

Seems to have done it's job; even if Twitter doesn't hand anything over, the NYT has gone very quiet on what's in the documents since the subpoena went out; not that they were a fount of information before that.

[Bullajami]

Seems to have done it's job; even if Twitter doesn't hand anything over, the NYT has gone very quiet on what's in the documents since the subpoena went out; not that they were a fount of information before that.

Isn't this the normal news cycle - superficial coverage and then follow up with moving on to the next hot thing? Not that it's 100% the fault of the newspapers. Tabloid readers the world over would rather read about the sex life of the man who stuck his thumb in the eye of the US Govt than about the contents of what was exposed.

The subpoena may have had some effect, but it would be awfully difficult to prove unless the editorial staff at the NYT was willing to admit it.

[janeg]

The subpoena may have had some effect, but it would be awfully difficult to prove unless the editorial staff at the NYT was willing to admit it.

Think there is some free floating angst in American journalist circles surrounding the WikiLeaks issue; most are distancing themselves from Assange and denying he is a journalist; just in case the US finds some way to legally charge Assange with a crime. The subpoena(s) look like a legal foray to that end.

[darvon]

The subpoena may have had some effect, but it would be awfully difficult to prove unless the editorial staff at the NYT was willing to admit it.

Think there is some free floating angst in American journalist circles surrounding the WikiLeaks issue; most are distancing themselves from Assange and denying he is a journalist; just in case the US finds some way to legally charge Assange with a crime. The subpoena(s) look like a legal foray to that end.

Tough rocks. Today journalism is a spectrum. If they want Fifth Estate protections for the traditionals, they better not back away from the blogs.

What would happen with the Pentagon Papers today? Interesting.

[janeg]

What would happen with the Pentagon Papers today? Interesting.

It's more about what would happen to Ellsberg, Chomsky, Zinn and Sheehan, the NYT journalist who was given the papers. Today Assange is on an Interpol list and under house arrest in an English manor; mild treatment compared to what Bradley Manning is undergoing.

He is kept isolated in his cell 23 hours a day, where he is cut off from most human contact, denied reading materials and personal items, prevented by the guards from exercising and regularly awakened from his sleep. He has been at Quantico for five months, following two months of detention in Kuwait

He was charged, in July, with 'leaking classified material'. Ellsberg was charged with possession of classified documents and released on $500k bail (an option not given to Manning). He was later charged with theft and espionage carrying a sentence of 105 years. The case was thrown out because the government illegally spied on Ellsberg.

Charges are dismissed against Ellsberg and Russo after Judge Byrne received a memorandum from Watergate prosecutor Earl Silbert claiming: “On Sunday, April 15, 1973, I received information that on a date unspecified, Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt burglarized the offices of a psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg to obtain the psychiatrists’ filings.”

I doubt Manning will be as lucky.