Wikileaks: Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange's account

@crazychica Said

I'm not saying that they wouldn't have their own sources for information but let's face it, this is a goldmine for them. If they ever really wanted a way to drain the US's defences and economy like they say is their goal, all they have to do is pick a few targets from that list. I mean think about it, the US themselves had to go through it and identify the targets on this list. We're not talking about something huge like where they store weapons, we're talking about where they get resources and the list seems to be pretty big. If the US themselves had to stop and think about it, how many other countries/organisations would really have thought about it either? Let's face it, whoever leaked it was irresponsible and wikileaks were irresponsible to host it.

@SparklyKatie Said

Yeah while I agree with you as I've said on another topic about this. If one of the most technologically advanced, richest, security conscious nations in the world can't keep their information secure then they shouldn't be sending things like this electronically. If a US private can get his hands on data like this what's stopping an Al-Qaeda spy doing the same?

WikiLeaks is not the problem.

@crazychica Said

It depends on who leaked it and who they were willing to send it to. Wikileaks is kind of the problem. It provides a sure-fire way for that information to reach the public since the media are so fixated on it.

And it was sent by cable. It's been the best way to send that information for years. Diplomatic Cables

@SparklyKatie Said

Newspapers I'm sure would just love to have the resources to intercept information like that. If they were morally superior (as people are making out) to WikiLeaks they would've ignored it wouldn't they?

But they didn't, they want to sell papers, anyway they can and this was just too juicy to pass up.

Cables can still be intercepted, Britain in WWII was the world leader in espionage and misinformation. They didn't send anything that was interceptable (unless it was purposely done so like in the BBC2 program I watched last night.)

There's a risk with anything sent electronically, there's always someone out there that can crack codes or use other means.

There are totally secure ways of sending information but they're too slow and security is sacrificed over speed.

@crazychica Said

I'd say speed is part of security.

All I said was that they do have points where they would stop and I think it's doubtful they would have published this information.

@SparklyKatie Said

But they didn't. They've released (in bits and bobs everyday to sell more papers) the juiciest excerpts from WikiLeaks.

At what point have they showed restraint?

@crazychica Said

Not now that someone else is responsible for the leak. They're still willing to hide under someone else's loose morals

@SparklyKatie Said

So tell me, why, when (I reckon) 99% of people have seen this information on the media, have they actively shut down WikiLeaks?

I've never even visited WikiLeaks. 100% of my knowledge on what was released has come from the media.

Where did you find it out?

@crazychica Said

The media. but that's kind of Wikileak's goal. They want people to hear it in the media. As I said before, it's not about the truth it's about the number of hits they can get. Even if they were relatively secure that kind of information shouldn't be in the public domain. Joe Public might not be searching for it but I'm sure the next unabomber would be very interested.

@SparklyKatie Said

So to you hits (for no profit) are worse than selling of secrets to line the pockets of newspaper magnates?

The unabomber picked his target without WikiLeaks, so did the IRA, so did Al-Qaeda, so did ETA and so have every terrorist organisation for the last 2,000 years.

They know where to hit without WikiLeaks.

@crazychica Said

They want people to hear it in the media. As I said before, it's not about the truth it's about the number of hits they can get.

@boobagins Said

How do you know that? Can you prove that, that is what it's about. You're fixated on point and while part of it may be credible, that's not all what its about.

@crazychica Said

That's all its ever about. Most of this information released lately isn't really worth anything. All it's done is cause problems for the diplomats and, like every big release, get wikileaks more attention

@boobagins Said

If the information is not worth anything, then why the big fuss?

I'm sorry, while I don't agree that wikileaks is sharing certain classified information, I think you're attacking the wrong people.

They are being used as a scapegoat because they are easy to target and take your anger out on...but the truth is, those that are at fault first are the federal employees that are going against ethical codes and first need to be punished and held responsible. Wikileaks may make it easier, but if people wanted this information out, they would get it out one way or another, wikileaks or not. You're right, most media outlets won't touch some of that stuff, but that's because they get government subsidies, ad revenue and therefore hold a large public interest.

The technology used in wikileaks website is readily available to everyone. Wikiepedia is the template they based their site from where initially anyone could post on their site securely as well as discuss and comment on certain things. Since then they have gotten ridden of the comments etc section and now to where everything in the last two years that was posted was being screened.

So they had mathematicians and tech guys that helped create the site, news outlets are free to do that too.

The technology of the site is readily available and can be created and it is all a mirror image of a combination of sites.