whistleblowers: wikileaks, snowden i...

[Musharaf]

Mark Jeftovic, <[email protected]>President & CEO, easyDNS Technologies Inc.

[luba]

Ma koga briga šta koji procenat javnosti u nekoj anketi misli? Od kad je to vest?Mediji bi trebalo da utiču na javno mišljenje, i to ističući svoje. A ne da izveštavaju šta poluinformisani misle.

ajd sad, ovo nije galup i slicni, vec medijski za medije. pew je dosta cenjen medj profesijom, oni fini po rezultatima dizu coverage ako smatraju da je nesto zanemareno. to sto je takvih malo, nije pew kriv.ali ovo je veoma zanimljivo misljenje, posebno kada se vidi odakle dolazi:

No secretsPosted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, November 30, 2010I am traveling a lot this week -- first to D.C. and then to Toronto -- so blogging is likely to be light through Friday. Before I head off to get poked and prodded by the friendly TSA personnel at Logan, I thought I'd leave you with a hypothetical to ponder, inspired by the latest WikiLeaks releases. Here's the question: How much difference would it really make if all these "private" diplomatic meetings were public? Suppose there was no such thing as a "private" diplomatic meeting or a backchannel discussion. I can easily imagine that world leaders wouldn't like it very much -- but how much would world politics change if all these conversations were held in public so that people could see and hear what was being said? I don't have a firm answer on this issue, but one possibility is that this hypothetical situation would pose a much bigger problem for authoritarian leaders than it would for democratically elected ones. If an autocrat knew that their conversations would all be public, they wouldn't be able to say one thing in private and then say something else when speaking on the record. And that means that some of them might have to adopt positions that were more in accordance with their populations wishes, particularly if their hold on power was tenuous. It would all be on the record. By contrast, a democratic leader would just have to take positions that they felt would appeal to their electorate, which isn't such a terrible idea on its face. Of course, there's a downside here: you'd get a lot more posturing, and maybe even diplomatic rigidity, as leaders of all kinds tried to show that they were tough bargainers. And public opinion is a fickle thing, and you wouldn't want leaders to be nothing more than weathervanes mouthing whatever their latest poll told them to say. It's also likely that some diplomatic conversations would be empty and stilted, because nobody wanted to talk about anything serious in the full glare of open disclosure. But diplomatic problems still need to get solved, and a world of full disclosure might actually force leaders of all types to explain the realities behind their decisions a bit more, and educate the population when public opinion was off-base. But my real question remains: Would it really make that much difference? Would a world of "open covenants, openly arrived at" (to use Wilson's phrase), really be that different than the world in which we live today? And aren't all those people who are now defending the importance of diplomatic confidentiality really saying that there is a lot of information that our leaders have to keep from us, or else the world will all go to hell?

[Аврам Гојић]

Zatvoren javni ratni štab Anonymousa.-------------Encyclopedia Dramatica, while not officially associated with Anonymous, has been host to information on many of its efforts. On Wednesday, according to Gawker, the Wiki-driven site was ordered to remove information regarding Operation Payback, the codename for the latest series of attacks against organizations that have moved against WikiLeaks.“Some sites have received federal court orders to cease any further online documentation of the attacks…Among the sites where content is coming down is Encyclopedia Dramatica, which we're told received one of the orders,” the Gawker report said, noting that the information came from a source close to the situation.Operation Payback started as a campaign by a subgroup of Anonymous (AnonOps) against the anti-piracy efforts of groups such as the RIAA, MPAA, ACS Law, AiPlex, and AFACT. Things came to a head in the campaign when it was revealed that AiPlex had been hired to launch a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) against The Pirate Bay.Before it was ordered to remove the entry, Encyclopedia Dramatica hosted the history of Operation Payback, which included contact information for those organizations targeted. Also, some of the information collected was of a personal nature.

[Takeshi]

И не само то. У истом су се троуглу ваљале информације, било се на 1 извору контролисаних трачева које пушта државна безбедност и страни плаћеници. Овако све ркнуто да и сиротиња раја може да чита оно што је требало да знају само посвећени чаршијски жреци.

Tzv. "dobro obavesteni krugovi" "nezvanicni izvori" i slice fraze za informacije dobijene od Sluzbe, njenih bivsih pripadnika, suprotstavljenih klanova itd.A ovde okaceni papiri, sa datumima, potpisima, imenima... ^_^Jebote, sto nece neki Amerikanac da okaci one diskove koje im je Rade Bulatovic narezao kao oprostajni poklon. Edited December 9, 2010 by Takeshi

[Weenie Pooh]

Zatvoren javni ratni štab Anonymousa.

Ladno su zatvorili wiki sajt Kakvi spektakularni idioti. Eno na vikipediji živa i zdrava Operation Payback stranica, i nikom ništa.A evo kako izgleda "zabranjena" stranica, iz google cache. Stvarno 1 smrtonosan hakeraj.Propade pokret, kako će sad da regrutuju ako ne preko Enciklopedije Dramatike Edited December 9, 2010 by Weenie Pooh

[morgana]

i tviter i fejsbuk su ukinuli naloge anonimusu

[morgana]

napasce i amazon

[luba]

mladic ne bas senzacionalandoduse, sad videh, pa opet da se slihtam malo larku:

In the cables, U.S. diplomats expressed skepticism about the foreign minister, described as a “Harvard-educated wunderkind” who regards “every positive interaction with Moscow as a blow to Washington.”

The UN's human rights chief on Thursday expressed concern about pressure on private companies to stop providing financial or Internet services for whistleblower site Wikileaks. "I'm concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies, including banks, credit card companies, to close down credit lines for donations to WikiLeaks as well as to stop hosting the website or its mother sites," said Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. "They could be interpreted as an attempt to censor the publication of information, thus potentially violating WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression," she said at a press conference. "If WikiLeaks has commited any recognisable illegal acts then this should be handled through the legal system and not through pressure and intimidation including on third parties," she said.

Edited December 9, 2010 by luba

[Musharaf]

Српско оружје за Јемен

[Musharaf]

doduse, sad videh, pa opet da se slihtam malo larku:

Мош' да замислиш који су то балвани када им он изгледа као 'вундеркинд'.

[morgana]

WikiLeaks is aware that several government agencies and corporations, including the Swedish prosecutor, Mastercard, PayPal and State.gov have come under cyber-attack in recent days, and have often been driven offline as a result.The attacks are of a similar nature to those received – and endured – by the Wikileaks website over the past week, since the publication of the first of 250,000 US Embassy Cables.These denial of service attacks are believed to have originated from an internet gathering known as Anonymous. This group is not affiliated with Wikileaks. There has been no contact between any Wikileaks staffer and anyone at Anonymous. Wikileaks has not received any prior notice of any of Anonymous' actions.Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said: "We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks. We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets."

pametan potez, bilo je neophodno da kazu da nisu povezani sa anonimusom Edited December 9, 2010 by morgana

[Аврам Гојић]

"We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks. We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets."

[Conspirator]

The Chinese government may have used its access to Microsoft source code to develop attacks that exploited weaknesses in the Windows operating system, according to a US diplomatic memo recently published by Wikileaks.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/wikileaks_chinese_hacking/

[morgana]

konspiratore, koja je tvoja omiljena teorija zavjere u vezi sa vikiliksom?

[Weenie Pooh]

Nego, jel' neko preuzeo odgovornost za napade na WikiLeaks sajtove? Siguran sam da i njih predano ganjaju FBI & Interpol, kao i ove anonimne klince iz maminog podruma...Ozbiljno, zanima me zvanično objašnjenje - šta obara WL servere? Spontani gnev ugroženog naroda američkog? Ahmed & Nedžad? Weather balloons?