Per Quinn Norton, at Wired‘s Threat Level blog, “Anonymous Launches WikiLeaks-esque Site for Data Dumps“:
Frustrated by the lack of impact from Anonymous’ otherwise famous hacks and data dumps, and the slow pace of material coming out of WikiLeaks, participants in the Anonymous collective have launched a WikiLeaks-like site called Par:AnoIA (Potentially Alarming Research: Anonymous Intelligence Agency).
Paranoia, which debuted in March, is a new publishing platform built by Anonymous to host Anonymous data leaks that’s trying to find a solution to a problem that plagues news sites, government transparency advocates, and large-website owners everywhere: how to organize more data than any human could possibly read.
The site marks a departure from the groups’ previous modus operandi, where it would publicly drop the documents, make them available in a torrent — usually as a zip file, and then move on. By contrast, the goal of Paranoia is to curate and present content to a hopefully interested public….
But there’s no science to how and when big data leaks make an impact. The very idea is so new, no one even knows yet how to study it. With Paranoia, Anonymous joins much more established projects like IBM’s Many Eyes, the Associated Press’s Overview, and the consortium of journalistic entities behind Document Cloud testing the proposition that building tools and specialized hosting can solve the problem with data engagement.
Much, much more information at the link. I freely admit I am not competent to judge the technological value of this project, but I do admire the acronym.
General Stuck
ah, Yes/ Like the blood soaked claimed nexus of wikileaks/Bradley Manning/Arab Spring. Lots of cool stuff to cheer on from here in the US of A, until Obama ruined it with his busy bodying around over there.
The Quadaffy massacre could have had all sorts of long term ponies for American progressives. It might even have given us a Public Option. But not now. Maybe Paranoia will strike deep. find the thread to unravel it all for the Apocalypse. That is running way late by most standards.
Think of the outrage, the protest, the blood in the streets, the felonies. Heady stuff for late night streaming when Netflix gets boring.
McWaffle
You can tell the quote is from Wired because it says “participants in the Anonymous collective” instead of “Card-carrying members of Anonymous, wearing their trademarked Guy Fawkes masks…”
joes527
@General Stuck: I think you should talk to your doctor about adjusting your meds.
Seriously.
different-church-lady
They’re Batman.
gnomedad
Fisherian runaway … only pretty in peacocks.
General Stuck
@joes527:
I’m not the one linking to a story about a group called Paranoia, and saying shit like this.
You want to change things, get yourself elected, or somebody that will do the work for free toward making a better world. Leaking sensitive info like fucking National Enquirer has consequences, sometimes big ones. A bunch of computer geeks with potential explosive info posted on the internet does not fill me with comfort. And anyone it does, maybe they should tweak their meds.
And are you not aware that our esteemed freedom fighters over at FDL, as well as Julian Assange have given credit to Manning for the shit in the middle east recently? I don’t know if they had an impact or not, but they think they did.
joes527
@General Stuck:
OK, so that is probably hyperbole. There probably are people who know how to study it. There are probably studying it right now. Interesting stuff.
As for your: “Oh noes! Be afraid! Be very afraid of the nasty
terroristsleakers!”meh.
The threat level has alway been chartreuse.
General Stuck
@joes527:
mai naem
I want a data dump from the Mitt Romney campaign. I ain’t fussy. Emails since he wrapped up the nom will do. Tax returns would be even better. Hell, I will take emails just from the past two weeks.
Geeno
I have to wonder what it says about established media that I trust this in Anonymous’ hands more than anyone else’s.
pseudonymous in nc
@McWaffle:
If you haven’t read Quinn’s long piece for Wired, give it a look. She’s put in a fuckload of work on the Anon/Occupy beats, and it shows.
General Stuck
@mai naem:
I figure the last will and testament of Baby Jeevus, is wrapped up in those.
joes527
@General Stuck:
Fear is fear.
You seem to have missed the ironical strkeout of terrorism to replace it with leaking. As long as we can be afraid of _something_ we are OK I guess.
General Stuck
@Geeno:
I think we still have some first rate national security investigative reporters. I trust Dana Priest, and others like James Risen, and several others. Our media is fucked up, but they still become giddy with the scent of scandal and posse up, like moths to a flame.
Geeno
I’m so disappointed – I was hoping to get some debate over who should be “in charge”, from a public policy POV, of leaked data dumps.
When I say “public”, I mean US – the public.
Geeno
@General Stuck: Ah thank you – you got in before my post at #14
General Stuck
@joes527:
Oh bullshit, and fear mongering runs both ways, to include those that see lying government boogymen behind every Bush. What big sekret is Obama keeping from us? That he is targeting AQ people, and the Taliban. There is no secret to that, it is directed at him through congressional warmaking powers, it is out in the open and he told us expressly that he was going to do this in 2008. Now if they are targeting people for other reasons, then we need to know that. Otherwise, we have elections to replace leaders doing things we don’t like
Other wise, what I am saying is we have a democratic process to deal with this shit. And I think we still have some good national security reporters out there that I trust enough to not despair into supporting unhinged release of sensitive info will nilly.
General Stuck
@Geeno:
I may have kilt this thread by my Obot nonsense. So I will retreat to the obscurity of the ethers. Carry on, I will not comment on this thread again, unless someone writes to my fake name.
Maude
@joes527:
Yeah, I’m going to trust someone named Anonymous to be responsible with information.
This group has an agenda.
They will pick and choose what data to dump.
Why you think this is okay is beyond me.
joes527
@General Stuck:
OK, now you sound like a Paultard.
The invisible hand of the electorate will fix the problems that the electorate is not allowed to know about!
Maude
@joes527:
19, you’re not making sense.
joes527
@Maude:
That would be foolish of you.
correct
correct*
for exactly the same reason that it is OK with me for you to post whatever the fuck you want to post.
* Interestingly enough, a certain general was arguing that the problem with the Guys in the Fawkes masks is that they won’t be choosy enough about what they release. It seems to boil down to: They will release info that makes my guy (small g) look bad.
Boo fucking hoo. That road is a dead end.
joes527
@Maude: perhaps I should talk to my doctor about having my meds adjusted.
General Stuck
@joes527:
I thought Paul was for the free market to govern us. So you are coming out against democracy to fix our problems. Now THAT is some right wing tea tard material.
And yes, I am a registered independent but a fierce supporter and follower of small (d) democracy. And am not ready to scratch the holy processes of that support.
I think there are folks qualified to tell us when leaders are lying to us, and I still do trust them. Despite everything. One hell of a lot more than computer hackers. They should give what they have to Dana Priest, and see what she does with it. I can support that.
This remark is too stupid to respond to.
joes527
@General Stuck:
And yet you did.
General Stuck
@joes527:
Mercy. such a clever boy.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
What Stuck said. Anonymous is breaking with Wikileaks ‘cos they think Assange’s crew aren’t being reckless enough with what gets released. This will end well, I’m sure.
If you don’t think hacks can be used by wingnutz or worse, see the so-called Climategate hack. Timed to shaft any progress at Copenhagen, despite being a big nothingburger in the end.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
agorabum
Ah, such a missed opportunity to add “deep” to the headline: “Par:AnoIA Strikes Deep”
So close…
ms badger
@General Stuck: John McCain’s oppo file
General Stuck
@ms badger:
Could be. :)
Wazmo
(f/x in honeybbadger voice) Anonymous don’t care, Anonymous doesn’t give a shit.
Put it another way: it’s just desserts if your enemies’ ox is gored, but cataclysmic if your ox is gored.
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
The question then becomes: do you accept the truth or reject it?
NobodySpecial
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
Using this line in arguing that leaking secret information is bad….man, that’s some levels of lack of awareness there.
Now, Stuck I understand, and he’s worried enough about this that he finally admitted he ain’t no Dem….but I am always shocked when I see people follow him over the cliff.
General Stuck
@NobodySpecial:
That’s been public knowledge on this blog for years. The reason is that I so admire Bernie Sanders, I wanted to be just like him. So I caucus with dems, like he does.
Patrick Meighan
“What I said has nothing to do with threat levels or terrorism and the like. It has to do with tinkering around with info that is sensitive, often in personal ways that end up spiraling into escalated troubles that serve no one and that tend to get people dead.”
Who, exactly, are some of the people who have been gotten dead by virtue of that sensitive-info-tinkering? What are their names? Please list some of them.
Patrick Meighan
“And I think we still have some good national security reporters out there that I trust enough to not despair into supporting unhinged release of sensitive info will nilly.”
I wonder how those good national security reporters allowed our nation to be led into a trillion-dollar boondoggle in Iraq based on lies. Maybe they weren’t good then, but now they’re good?
You can go ahead and trust those good national security reporters. I’ll take transparency, thanks.
Patrick Meighan
What big sekret is Obama keeping from us? That he is targeting AQ people, and the Taliban. There is no secret to that, it is directed at him through congressional warmaking powers, it is out in the open and he told us expressly that he was going to do this in 2008.
I’d like to know exactly how and why we killed a 16 year old American citizen in Yemen. I don’t remember seeing that listed in Senator Obama’s 2008 platform.
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
If you believe Julian Assange, then he was correct in saying himself there would be “blood on his hands” And if you believe those who credited Bradley Manning/Wikileaks with aiding in getting the Arab Spring going, then the list is long of getting people dead. If you want to hang your hat on assurances that the mil dump on Afghanistan, as no retaliation for listing informants for the US in that country. There is little likely hood we would know if any of those folks got dead. And it is highly pathetic to justify leaking the names of those informants, regardless
Lemme guess. You are one of those people who opposed our helping the rebellious Libyans with our air force/
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
Those reporters gave us the Bush torture regime, and warrantless wire tapping by Bush, among other things.
I think you want excitement, and something to protest , safely snug in your US home, if you live here. And damn the consequences that will not affect you one iota.
Patrick Meighan
“If you believe Julian Assange, then he was correct in saying himself there would be “blood on his hands” And if you believe those who credited Bradley Manning/Wikileaks with aiding in getting the Arab Spring going, then the list is long of getting people dead.”
I’m genuinely confused: are you granting that the Arab Spring uprisings were indeed aided by the Wikileaks releases? And if so, are you pinning the blame for any resultant deaths on Wikileaks (and not on, say, the dictatorial Mubarak or Saleh regimes)?
“If you want to hang your hat on assurances that the mil dump on Afghanistan, as no retaliation for listing informants for the US in that country. There is little likely hood we would know if any of those folks got dead.
Has even the U.S. government itself claimed that even one single Afghani informant has been killed as a result of a Wikileaks release? That’s a yes or no question, incidentally.
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
Like I said upthread, I have no problem with finding out who we are killing and how, by specific leaks to such information if there is illegality to it under rules of war.
Unless you believe that that 16 year old was targeted himself and not to targeting others and he was too close to that attack.
And this business of somehow American citizenship as being less a tragedy for any civilians or non combat persons that get killed, is a pathetic viewpoint, imo.
Patrick Meighan
“Those reporters gave us the Bush torture regime, and warrantless wire tapping by Bush, among other things.”
Those reporters sat on warrantless wiretapping by Bush for a full year, until after the 2004 elections were complete. Have you forgotten that? That’s one of the big problems with trusting a tiny handful of “good national security reporters” with information which rightfully belongs to every American citizen.
“I think you want excitement, and something to protest , safely snug in your US home, if you live here. And damn the consequences that will not affect you one iota.”
Let’s try talking about the actual issue at hand and ditch the mindreading garbage. Deal?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick Meighan
“Like I said upthread, I have no problem with finding out who we are killing and how, by specific leaks to such information if there is illegality to it under rules of war.”
Okay, now we’re getting someplace. So… exactly how do you suggest we American citizens receive that information? Not by anyone “leaking sensitive info like fucking National Enquirer”, you made that clear upthread. And you are not filled with comfort by “a bunch of computer geeks with potential explosive info posted on the internet”, you’ve said that too. So how, exactly, do you suggest that we Americans find out exactly “who we are killing and how”.
“Unless you believe that that 16 year old was targeted himself and not to targeting others and he was too close to that attack.”
I don’t know what happened! That’s why I’m asking! As to what I personally might believe about it: who cares?! The fact is that a young American boy was killed by our government in our name with our tax dollars and we American citizens have not been told one single thing about why it happened and what justification (legal, moral or otherwise) there may or may not be for his slaughter. That’s a real problem.
Anyway, you asked upthread, “What big sekret is Obama keeping from us?” There’s one.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
No, what I said was Assange taking credit for revolt in Egypt and elsewhere.
To Whit
You don’t order me to answer or say anything the way you want. And again, we nor the military can really answer that question easily, in such a foreign country. I would be surprised if they are in hiding, maybe even helped by the US mil. The Taliban has the info, and has said they are going to study it before meating out punishment. And again, for anyone using that tact, is pathetic excuse for wikileaks doing what it did. Seriously, do you really think that the Taliban would forgive and forget informing for Americans.
Not mind reading. But a question. Did you support our intervention in Libya? that is a yes no question, btw
General Stuck
Through our democratic institutions, like the congress and press. I don’t buy the excuse that these places are so screwed up won’t tell us things we want, and need to know. And for the thousandth time. I am not against leaking specific information for a specific issue that we need to know. Though it is still illegal. just not bundles of data that some computer hackers thinks should be released.
You have misread/misinterpret about every quote I’ve commented on this thread, and are proclaiming we need to discuss the topic at hand.
edit – man, the BDS lingers like a waft from the backyard shithouse. He isn’t president anymore. Obama is.
Patrick Meighan
I’ll answer the question that you cowardly refuse to answer, “General Stuck”: no, not even the U.S. Government itself claims that a single Afghani informant has been in any way harmed as a result of the Wikileaks releases. So when you’re saying that such releases “tend to get people dead”, you’re talking straight out of your ass.
As to the question of whether or not I, personally, supported our intervention in Libya: I can’t think of a question which is less relevant to the issue of transparency in American foreign policy. Nor can I think of a question which matters less. But hey, if and when BJ ever posts a thread entitled “Did Patrick Meighan of Culver City, California Support The U.S. Intervention in Libya?”, I’ll meet you there and we can talk all about it. Okay, “General Stuck”?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
So now you’re basing your entire argument on the word of the military. Sounds like Mitt Romney with Politifact and Glenn Kessler having his back.
And again, the Taliban has this info, according to them, like everyone else in the world that chose to download it, and you saying they will forgive and forget informants against them. That’s a good one
Jeebus, that is a primo impersonation of Mitt Romney. Bravo!!
Patrick Meighan
“Through our democratic institutions, like the congress and press. I don’t buy the excuse that these places are so screwed up won’t tell us things we want, and need to know.”
Okay, so exactly which of the above is gonna tell us why and how a 16 year old American boy was slaughtered by our executive branch, and precisely what the rationale was for said slaughter? And when, exactly, is one of them gonna give us that information? We’ve got an election coming up real soon, and before we Americans head to our respective voting booths to make our electoral choices, it seems to me that it’d be helpful to know exactly why and how this president condemns certain Americans to death without charge or trial, and upon exactly what legal and constitutional basis he makes such condemnations.
Can I please get an ETA on when exactly our democratic institutions, like the congress and the press, are going to provide us with that information?
“I am not against leaking specific information for a specific issue that we need to know. Though it is still illegal. just not bundles of data that some computer hackers thinks should be released.”
The problem, “General Stuck”, is that you and I may have different ideas about “a specific issue that we need to know”.
I think we need to know that the State Department, at the behest of American clothing manufacturers, pressured the Haitian government not to raise its minimum wage (the lowest in the Western Hemisphere).
I think we need to know that our troops were delivering nonviolent political dissidents to the Iraqi police to be tortured.
I think we need to know that the U.S. government allowed the Yemeni President to lie to the Yemeni press about secret U.S. airstrikes, and then knowingly allowed those lies to be reprinted in the U.S. press as fact.
I think we need to know that our own intelligence agencies are aware that large portions of our Afghani aid dollars are siphoned off via corruption and in some cases are being to diverted to poppy traffickers.
I think we need to know that the U.S. government fully understood that large numbers of Guantanamo inmates were innocent, even while continuing to hold them for additional months and years as the purported “worst of the worst”.
I think we need to know that our own intelligence agencies consider our Saudi allies–the recipients of untold American weapons and intelligence capacity–to be among the world’s largest exporters of terrorism.
As an American citizen, I think we need to know all the above. And all of the above was told to us by “people are claiming to be some kind of avenging angel to the world” (aka, Wikileaks). Given the choice between said angels and the folks who sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for a full year until after Bush’s re-election was secured, I’ll take the angels. I’ll take transparency.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick Meighan
“So now you’re basing your entire argument on the word of the military. Sounds like Mitt Romney with Politifact and Glenn Kessler having his back.”
I’m saying that the military has every incentive to echo your claim that the Wikileaks releases have resulted in the deaths of Afghani allies, and yet not even they make that claim. Doesn’t that make you curious, “General Stuck”? Even just a little? I mean, any reasonable person would be given pause by the fact that not even our own government is claiming that its allies were harmed by Wikileaks in the way that you, yourself, are claiming. But not you, though.
“And again, the Taliban has this info, according to them, like everyone else in the world that chose to download it, and you saying they will forgive and forget informants against them. That’s a good one”
Oh, I see, so people will get dead in the future! Got it! Not only do you possess a mindreading machine, you possess a crystal ball, and you can see future dead people, even if the current people are alive!
It’s been two full years since the Wikileaks releases hit, but the sinister Taliban is just waiting, until… um, er, I dunno, but they’re waiting! Sez “General Stuck”.
It’s too bad that you’re too cowardly to tell us all your actual name and location, because we fellow American citizens could sure benefit if you were to share with us your magic paranormal gadgets.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
General Stuck
@Patrick Meighan:
So you’re an internet psycho. We are done here.
Patrick Meighan
“So you’re an internet psycho. We are done here.”
Darn, I’m really going to miss your uterly-false assertions, your irrelevant tangents and your almost-but-not-quite-complete sentences. Predicates are way overrated.
Goodbye, anonymous person on the internet.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
General Stuck
Goodnight Mitt
Patrick Meighan
Goodnight Mitt
Boom, sizzle! Anonymous person on the internet brings the thunder!
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
General Stuck
And also too. I think it totally awesome that people believe the government and military are lying to them as a justification for leaking classified info. Then turn around and base their entire claim on the word of the military. Just awesome.
Patrick Meighan
“And also too. I think it totally awesome that people believe the government and military are lying to them as a justification for leaking classified info. Then turn around and base their entire claim on the word of the military. Just awesome.”
Oh man, I thought you said we were done!
But okay, try super-hard to understand: if there’s an institution which is known to prevaricate in service of its own interests (like, say, any nation’s government, including our own), and said institution declines to make a claim that it has every incentive to make (i.e., said claim would clearly serve its interests), that carries much greater weight than would any standard self-serving claim ordinarily made by said institution.
Is it independently dispositive? No. But it should certainly give great pause to folks like yourself who claim harms to our government and its allies that not even our own government (or said allies) themselves have claimed.
I know that the above is probably tough for you to grasp. Heck, if this thread is any indication, you don’t seem to understand how verbs work, much less this logic stuff! But any reasonable independent third party reading this should be able to follow it okay, or at least that’s the hope.
And in any event, I’m not “bas(ing) my entire claim on the word of the military.” In point of fact, the only hard “claim” made in our entire conversation was the one made by you, yourself… specifically, your claim that the Wikileaks releases have resulted in the deaths of Afghani allies. My response, before as ever? Link, or it didn’t happen. That response remains.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Herbal Infusion Bagger
“Using this line in arguing that leaking secret information is bad….man, that’s some levels of lack of awareness there.”
OK. When Anonymous f*ck up, or fracture (like they are doing with Assange), or get compromised or played, or if one member who decides to take it upon himself to do something that’s a huge mistake, who’s gonna be the Church Committee?
I don’t like the self-appointed vigilantes like the Minutemen; and the same goes for Anonymous.
General Stuck
That has already been explained. You can disagree with that explanation, or not, and vote how you want. I don’t care.
As for you now claiming your argument on possibly dead informants to the US in Afghanistan, was not based soley on the word of the military, exposes you for the liar you have been on this thread.
I gave you a link for when Assange took credit for the Arab Spring revolts, in Egypt and elsewhere That’s what I was talking about with people ‘getting dead’
I like the new fake name and address mclaren. It makes you seem so brave and stuff. Time for your Thorazine shot?
General Stuck
@Herbal Infusion Bagger:
Hear, Hear. simply well put
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Patrick Meighan:
Point of fact: Stuck did not claim this. I just went back through the entire thread (Thank the FSM that it ain’t no 300-comment post- yet) and it isn’t there.