It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well I am surprised that YOU are surprised that the MSM is not practicing good journalism.
Besides, did it ever occur to you that they did not need to "question the validity of the documents?" Why would you not assume that the NYT was in contact with the government from the moment they were informed they would be receiving the data?
You didnt address the net benefit question. How do you see your scenario benefiting them? If this is the CIA funding Wikileaks, and setting us all up, how does making the CIA look bad, and the war in Afghanistan look irresponsible and ineffective, and more costly in human terms than we have been led to believe work in favor of the CIA?
How does gathering info in such a public manner that all your targets KNOW they are being exposed benefit an intelligence agency?
I suppose it could be argued that this could be the false flag that lets them shut down the internet, or lock it down tighter, but did they really need to make us all cognizant of the fact that they are scheming lying manipulating weasels to do so? It seems to me it would have been far more effective for them to uncover some "horrible plot" against innocents here at home, perpetrated by anyone other than themselves. Now if they shut down the net, a fair percentage of us are going to suspect that they did some really horrible things they dont want us to ever know about. No one is going to buy the terrorist line of crap at this point. Or very few will.
I guess I dont follow your logic in regard to why the PTB would send up a false flag that makes them look evil, manipulative, and arrogant as well as mildly incompetent all rolled into one. One or the other, ok, I could run with a story line, but both, its just hard to see how you feel that benefits them in any way. Either here or abroad.
Originally posted by tokyodynamite
If WL replied to freedomusic's email, "you almost got it!", then we should take into account that what they said could be sarcasm or they are actually telling him that he almost cracked it which means that they're probably waiting for the file to be cracked. Out of all the intelligient individuals in this world, there must be one person that can take into account the "Assange" mentality and find out the password.
It's just a matter of time.
Originally posted by Snarf
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Chess begins...second line.
LOL!
I don't think wikileaks is an insider, i honestly think he's just a propagandist who manipulates information to further his agenda.
He's already admitted, publicly, to doing so.
He's no hero. He's no villian. He's just another greasy stain on the facade of journalistic integrity.
Originally posted by the.krio
No, I'd estimate that there's about 20% chance that they've used a good key and not a pass phrase which would be possible to bruteforce.
Originally posted by the.krio
reply to post by ghostsoldier
No, I'd estimate that there's about 20% chance that they've used a good key and not a pass phrase which would be possible to bruteforce.
Anyway, once 5 chars is done with, a basic dictionary attack on 6 and more chars will proceed, then I'll be expanding the chars, combinations and modes of operation used.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry, I don't understand the difference between a key and a pass-phrase, could you please explain it?
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by dudez
I usually use passphrases, but I include Portuguese accented characters, from what I have seen those are usually left out of normal bruteforce attempts, and look as meaningless as a key for those that do not know the language.
Originally posted by the.krio
Basic four char brute turned up nothing, but here are intermediate results for someone who knows what he's looking at in case I missed something:
livzi.net...
Five chars underway.