Next to the content, most troubling aspect of Wikileaks issue is....

[HardWorkingDem]

that is seems hardly anyone is even making an inquiry how this organization is obtaining the information it has been collecting.

What I mean is, if this information is supposed to be so secret, then how is so much of it being collected? It sort of seems that a lot of the attention is of the sort of punishing the messenger while not even asking how this information is being found.

Really, if there were some secret information that really needed to be kept secret, can the people responsible for keeping information secret be trusted? Or are they just incompetent.

(And don't take this as a proponent as keeping information secret that should not be secret, secret - but instead, of information that should be secret, are these people even competent to keep a secret).

[Forkboy]

1. I'm willing to bet there are some working their asses off to answer this.

[bemildred]

4. Sound thinking there. nt

[jpgray]

15. Don't think you'll get many takers.

The reaction to this on DU has been a little strange in places. Like the former bureau chief of McClatchy said, I guess some people don't want to hear about how the sheriff is corrupt.

[sabrina 1]

2. Wikileaks gets information from whistle-blowers.

People who work for governments mostly and who see things they believe are wrong. Wikileaks protects their sources as much as they can, but one source, a U.S. soldier, was arrested several months ago and although I don't know if he was the source of this material, he was the source of the video of the killing of civilians and of Reuters reporters from an Apache helicopter in Iraq. The military had refused to release that video to Reuters who had requested an accounting for the death of their reporters.

He is currently in custody. He was caught after confessing to a friend what he had done. But no one knows who else has been supplying Wikileaks with the material they have.

[bemildred]

3. Well, with the cable traffic, I read there are 2.5 million with "access" to it.

Maybe when you have that much "secret" information accessible to that many people, it becomes very hard to prevent?

[jaxx]

5. I've been asking what's in it for Assange.

Who's stealing and feeding him the info? Who is paying for the huge space for the leaks?

[Poll_Blind]

7. Your perception belies a world view about the motivations of people that maybe you should....

...be concerned about.

The whole purpose of WikiLeaks is to allow whistleblowers some protection. Since our own government will not provide protection to whistleblowers, be they corporate or governmental whistleblowers, people with access to sensitive information detailing crimes or wrongdoings are left with two start choices: A) Do nothing and be eaten alive by their knowledge of the crimes or B) Leak the information.

As hard as it may be for some to digest, there are individuals in both the corporate sector and governmental sectors who have very strong moral characters, believe in the rule of law, and believe that mankind benefits from exposing wrongdoings and crimes.

People for whom which a monetary reward is not important.

People whose moral makeup includes a strong conscience.

Those individuals send WikiLeaks information. Although the leaks involving the United States obviously get attention, WikiLeaks has covered a broad range of topics for leaked material.

To answer your questions:

Who's stealing and feeding him the info?
The people who are stealing the information are the same people charged with guarding it. They submit the material anonymously. WikiLeaks does not know who they are. Because of this blind drop method, the leakers receive remuneration, praise or scorn for their leaks, at least through that submission process. Julian Assange's job is to be the "target", not the whistleblowers.

Who is paying for the huge space for the leaks?
It's all donated. WikiLeaks does some local hosting but of text files. There are at least five major world newspapers who directly benefit from access to the material for their stories and presumably some measurable amount of funding comes from them. The rest, donated by people who wish for whistleblowers to have an avenue to call attention to criminal acts and who view WikiLeaks as that medium.

PB

[jaxx]

9. There's nothing wrong with my perception.

This thing of someone gleefully trying to wreak havoc deserves to be questioned. Don't be a guppy.

[bemildred]

8. What's in it for DU?

Who is feeding DU info and paying for the space?
(We are.)

[jaxx]

10. And that has to do with what?

Most people here aren't out to damage anyone. The same can't be said for Assange.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

20. Whether DU is out to damage anyone depends on who you ask.

Some Republicans definitely think that we are wreckers.

The same goes for Assange. You say he is out to damage, I say he is out to heal. We have different perspectives, and our judgement depends on that perspective much more than on any "factual" interpretations.

I see Assange as the iodine of journalism - it stings when it goes on, but it ultimately promotes healing.

[xchrom]

6. I wish people would be more concerned with the content

Of the fuckin leaks.

The leaks are NOTHING.

What's important is the shit
Our governments have been up to in our name.

Period.

[Individualist]

19. +1

[sarcasmo]

11. To me the question is how long before Homeland Security shuts down Wikileaks.

[bemildred]

13. They will do it as soon as they can.

Working on it right now, no doubt.

[hlthe2b]

14. I'm betting the CIA is doing so... which does not bode well

for whoever might be involved. I am on the fence on this one... I believe that whistle blowers can be real heroes, but it remains to be seen what the motivation behind and outcome of these leaks might be.

[panader0]

16. Your point is correct

If this shit is so secret, how in hell are there so many documents available to Wikileaks? BS.....

[BeFree]

21. yep

Its almost as if someone very high up decided to make the leaks be leaked.

It could be that young man just happened upon the items and took it upon himself, but that does seem a stretch.

It could be there is a target for the leaks... certainly the DoD got hit hard the last time but it wasn't bloody. We'll know soon enough.

Sure looking forward to the latest release. It can't be something that democracy can't survive.
In fact, it should make us stronger.

[drm604]

17. Bradley Manning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

[dsc]

22. I can't see him being the source of this stuff

what would he be doing with diplomatic cables from literally all over the world and dating from the 1960's?

[drm604]

24. He supposedly hacked into government databases somehow.

He claims to have done it. I see no reason to doubt him.

[kgnu_fan]

18. These information is easily found on the web. Study up youself instead of taking up other's time

[HardWorkingDem]

23. Missed my point...

Besides the content, my point was, if this information is so important, is this the best that can be done to protect it?

To further illustrate - again, if the information is so important, then how can it be attained so easily and what does that say about information protection and those that protect it and the methods used to protect it?


What I'm getting at is this: let's say there were 100 operatives helping us in the search for Bin Laden and the same sort of security measures are used to protect their names as the type of information that Wikileaks is getting its hands on - my point is, what kind of security is that and what kind of people are in charge of protecting it if it can be obtained so easily and what is being done to prevent the actual leaking of information that should be kept secret.