Probably because the people sending the sensitive information across Tor didn't particularly care if third parties got it, too.

[Boldfacing is mine.]

Trevor

@Trevor; So some of the stuff appearing on Wikileaks was sent in the clear through a Tor node? Wow -- and they're calling Assange a criminal.

More from Techdirt "How The Response To Wikileaks Is Exactly What Assange Wants" -- Mike Masnick claims that the response to the Wikileaks that have appeared is playing directly into Assange's goals. A good read

Yes, it appears that criminals were sending the early Wikileaks information in the clear across Tor. So, in your opinion, is it acceptable to piggyback on the work done by criminals in stealing that information?

But this is again an indicator that not all the information presented by Wikileaks is leaked by someone who is authorized. At least some of it was stolen (and then basically stolen a second time by a Tor node administrator involved with Wikileaks).

By the way, I don't want to make it sound like I'm in any 'camp' with regards to Wikileaks, just that some of their actions (beginning with their very name) leave a very unpleasant taste in my mouth. I think many of the points made by you and others in this thread are excellent, and well deserving of consideration.

Trevor

Could someone remind me what Tor is?

Software and servers to give you Anonymity Online

Also, Wikipedia has an informative article on Tor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28...ity_network%29

Edit: And Wired has an article on some similar abuses of Tor which came out in 2007:
http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...urrentPage=all

Trevor

Mmm, onions. :)

I'm surprised that it's being abused like that.

Just a question… would SSH/SSL be safer for networking?

This thread is going off on a tangent. I'll try to answer your question, but let's not make this a discussion of anonymity and security.

ssh gives you a command-line encrypted connection to another computer that you have an account on. That's for another purpose entirely.

SSL is an end-to-end encryption protocol. It gives you some protection from someone on the general internet snooping the information that you are sending to a remote computer, but it does not provide any anonymity. In other words, someone can tell that you are connected over SSL from your IP address to another specific IP address, they just can't tell what information is going over that connection.

The real answer is to use both onion routing (like TOR) and end-to-end encryption like SSL. That way, you get anonymity and your data can't be read by someone on the 'net.

However, even that combination can be beaten, for example if the snooper has rooted the computer that you are connected to on the other end, or has rooted your computer. The data must be unencrypted on your end when you send it, and unencrypted on the other end for someone else to use it.

Trevor

I agree that there is no way a PFC could or should have access to these files.

Secondly, this is the equivalent of someone photographing the US while it is on the toilet.
Diplomats need to be able to send candid information about what they think of various other leaders. (He's a power-crazed drunk, etc.) This is what diplomacy is for.***
You can read archives of declassified stuff from the British Foreign Office that is witty, shocking, crude and incredibly blunt in its description of key players back to the 18th century.

I fear for a society when nothing is secret; when every rash word spoken in private may be brought out and used against you.

I don't think there is anything in these diplomatic communiques that is in "the public interest" -- unless you define public interest as cheap gossip.

*** When I was at school, we used to play a board game called "Diplomacy". Each player was a nation, and before all the army moves were announced, you would have a secret meeting with each player, in which you would promise an alliance, not to invade, etc, etc. Of course, what you actually did what often very different to what was promised.

Mike Huckabee, former candidate for Republican nomination for the Presidency and currently a talk show host on Fox is adding gas to the fire.

He is calling for the death sentence for the Private (presumably if he is found guilty) saying the Private's alleged act constitutes treason. He is technically correct, and we are at war.

I have wondered why the US haven't sent an open letter to Julien regarding the information leaks. Something about these lines:

Ok, that was just a fantasy, but…

At war with whom? Not the Iraqis. Not the Afghans.

I hope you don't mean at war "with terror". Ideas cannot be conquered by force.

Does the 3rd party now gets to decide what is confidential and classified? Did they ask the government before publishing any of this stuff. Did the government send the same letter to these 3rd party that they sent to Wikileaks?

Why are all the 3rd party folks given a free ride while the Wikileaks founder takikng all the heat? Something doesn't seem right about this.

They're beating on Assange because they can; they're leaving the press alone because of the first amendment.

Three thousand dead GIs in Iraq & Afghanistan, and many thousands more maimed. It is war to those fighting.

With North & South Korea in crisis, the Wikileaks reports are saying China would accept a unified North and South Korea and that North Korea is headed for imminent collapse. Could this assessment push North Korea into initiating a war and what would China really do (chance the leaked source is wrong, right)? Another Korean War and another 100,000 dead, even more if the North resorts to using nukes. And all because of Wikileaks stirring the pot with no more evidence than a leaked memo of one individual's assessment of the situation.

If the Private's action resulted in being a major cause of a war that resulted in massive loss of life, is that not treason?

Is this really responsible journalism? They are playing with fire.

Of course, Ambassadors and such report information and assessments back to the State Department. But their reports are only one source of intelligence out of many and their assessments are in no way the US Intelligence community's assessment.

I have to ask myself, what is the higher goal of wikileaks? What is the overall accomplishment?

Is it for the better good, the right of knowledge, or is it for some man's ego?

I think you have a valid point, it quite likely is Treason. But, I think the more important question is this: With two unpopular wars and the white house under siege, is it politically expedient for this to be Treason? I have this gut feeling that this question will have far more implications than deliberation over the technical definition of Treason.

I am sure the Patriot Act defines that action as treason. I did not verify this though, pure speculation.

I am content to allow the prosecutors and Courts Martial decide if this act reaches the level of treason. Regardless, the military has and will continue to prosecute individuals who divulge classified information.... and it doesn't matter who they divulge it to. In fact, a soldier will receive punishment under the UCMJ for inadvertently disclosing information or even simply failing to protect the information... i.e. walk out of the room with a classified document left on the soldier's desk..... whether the info was compromised or not.

Military takes protecting classified information very, very seriously.