Well, now that they've ORDERED them...
Depending on how mad they get they have a lot of tools at their disposal to make sure these don't get released.
If I were them I would start by DOSing all wikileaks servers.
Next I would trace where the servers were and pressure local governments into seizing them. (It wouldn't take much pressure, other governments can't be happy about wikileaks either.)
Next I would stage local burglaries and just "happen" to steal the wikileaks servers.
Wikileaks does have some options if this happens, most notably peer-to-peer releasing. Because of that the DOD may decide it's not worth starting up with them.
Is that incorrect, or weren't the other ones open source? I'll trust you over wikipedia :-)
If you just need me to "win the bet" here I'll point out that even SATAN scanned ports, and the netcat man page (also '95) shows how to use it as a port scanner. Hobbit "invented" UDP port scanner (which Strobe didn't do) in '94.
If you were thinking that maybe portscanning was an original idea, I'll recommend that you research NUAA (a "port scanner" for X.25 networks) and Tone-Loc (a "port scanner" for telephones).
Remember that 1994 is before the web and before ISDN. The Internet was mostly a means to get on IRC, which was in large part a place to talk about attacks on dial-up systems. This is back in the days where there was a "commercial" UUNet and a "noncommercial-only" NSFNet, and actual splits between the two. To some attackers, a high-quality NUA scanner might have been more valuable than a high-quality TCP scanner. Who scans TCP ports when 1/3 of Unix systems are running rexd and another 1/3 are exporting / to "everybody"?
For the record, I 100% believe Strobe inspired Fyodor. I don't want to take anything away from Strobe. It was impressive for its time.
(Late edit: I'm reminded by a friend that Pluvius wrote pscan.c before Proff wrote Strobe. So there.)
(Later edit: here's probe.c from Phrack in '94:
http://www.phrack.com/issues.html?issue=46&id=23
[look for probe_tcp_ports]).
Honestly, the whole thing is hot air right now. The government can't do anything about this incident. They can ensure that they don't let it happen again.
Not that this is really appropriate here, but the government is increasingly either not following laws, or not following the spirit of laws. For instance, Bradley Manning is being held outside of the country and isn't allowed to talk to a lawyer, or Gitmo, or this whole "videotaping cops" thing, or the storing of airport scanner photos... the list goes on and on. I don't think they'll outright kill Julian, but don't think the government is actually bound by the law.
(EDIT: tptacek has corrected my statement about Manning, but my overall point still stands.)
We only have Assange's word that he is being denied an attorney. I am sure the DoD are following their rules and if he has not already will eventually be assigned a JAG lawyer. He is not a civilian and he won't be treated as such.
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007466
> He appears to have been denied access to independent counsel and held incommunicado outside the country.
Manning has been at Quantico for (at least) almost a week now.
Manning is in serious shit. The crazier this Wikileaks stuff gets, the worse it's going to get for him. It's hard to hyperbolize the possible consequences at this point.
Part of the reason for that is that it's very easy to characterize the crime that he's alleged to committed.
Assange, on the other hand, probably hasn't committed any "crime" at all.
It's certainly interesting to see our increasingly international, distributed world. The old is trying to adapt to the new, and there's always going to be growing pains. That article where that guy claimed we should kidnap Assange was pretty funny; but also kind of scary. It's sort of amusing (in a morbid sort of way) that people feel we should impose our laws on people that aren't even our citizens, but then things like ACTA happen (or will happen, in its case) and it's not that funny any longer.
Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07...
"No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations..."
(The argument about whether al-Alwaki is or isn't part of Al Qaeda is even more boring than the argument about whether someone who posts embarassing things on the Internet might be killed).
It all hinges on pissing off the wrong person.
They can ensure that they don't let it happen again.
They can TRY to ensure it doesn't happen again.But remember, the documents are supposedly already redistributed except without the decryption key. When the time comes and the decryption key leaks, there will be so many copies of the data around that the government won't be able to do anything about it.
Information wants to be free.
Just because some lunatic at AEI (AEI: the morons that got us into this mess in the first place) says the FBI should kidnap Assange from Iceland doesn't mean that it's actually US policy to kidnap people who post embarassing things on the Internet.
As for pointing fingers, Wikileaks is assumed to have access to documents about private companies. Any minor player could be blamed for any evil that reaches him and his close associates that, by now, must be known by everybody interested.
The world is not a spy novel, but Assange is not safe. He is one border away from being locked up forever.
These posts all read like bad spy thrillers. You can make up anything at all about what "documents" Wikileaks might have, and what forces might be lined up against him. The fact is, 5 years from now, probably the only fallout for him is that he'll have a hard time getting past customs in the US.
The number of people here who's entire understanding of the world comes from spy novels and geopolitical thrillers is just utterly dumbfounding.
Remember the Iran-Contras thing? Extraordinary rendition?
Don't tell me governments always play by the rules, because they don't.
Specially when they can play the "national security" card.
I believe that Governments should play by the rules, and that there are even pretty solid rules governing actions in places like Afghanistan that have not been well followed. I also agree that Governments have not been playing by the rules post 9-11 and would like to see that change.
But there's a high degree of speculative cloak and dagger fantasizing going on around here (often called conspiracy theories) by people here who are probably too young to remember Iran-Contra yet think they have a keen understanding of the complete capabilities and limitations of the ability of NATO nations to conduct a war and apparently have decades worth of foreign policy experience. The amount of absolute nonsense spewed out here regarding expectations of everything from intelligence capabilities to the ability of us to negotiate with loosely non-aligned states with no government to the ability of a military operation to contain collateral damage is not just unrealistic, I've seen statements here that are beyond absurd.
There seems to be a body of people here that think that not only is absolutely perfect security possible (in the sense of the ability of an intelligence apparatus to contain secrets), but that NATO possesses magic super weapons that can not only automatically determine who terrorists are in a civilian population, but can strike them down with pinpoint accuracy in a crowd of people without mussing the hair up of the guy sitting next to the target drinking his chai while teleporting out the tea-house owner and his family who let us know that some Taliban asshole was sitting in his store plotting to rape, murder and intimidate the local townspeople into following some misguided plan to install a global Caliphate. And that all this can be done in a half-hour time block with commercials.
And then, based on this fantastical narrative, when these absurd expectations aren't met, think that it's a massive failure on the part of NATO and that they should just throw in the towel and let Afghanistan fall back into governance under the Taliban because obviously the whole thing has been a big failure. Clearly the "good guys" have chosen not to use their super weapons and teleporters to secure the battlefield and there must be some vast conspiracy why that is.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't entertain this kind of moronic nonsense.
Can't argue with that
> while teleporting out the tea-house owner and his family
We have to assume the Pentagon knew what documents Manning leaked from the moment they apprehended him. With that info at hand, they had a couple weeks to arrange protection for informants whose names they could assume would be disclosed.
This is an asymmetric war. It's impossible to win.
If not, spies have it really easy.
So even if they can be above the law in theory, they would attract the wrath of the public in practice.
Anyway, the fact that that guy from the defence has put on a very serious looking and almost mean face just makes you think of kids in school saying give me back my hat.
The govt simply need to ensure that Manning 2.0 does not happen. They can do that by making sure that the rest of Manning's life is very unpleasant.
Assange has already alienated so many people that I don't think he will be getting as much leakage in the future.
For example, if a Sgt in the Army has documents which state that the Army is improperly disposing of munitions and they are poisoning a local towns water supply. It is unlikely he would now go to Wikileaks - they are an organization which may have put him in danger, put his friends in danger and leaked classified documents to the world during a time of war.
That was pretty dumb, IMHO. Like I said a couple weeks back, leaking sensitive information about recklessness/corruption/incompetence in a military operation is very serious business and you a) cover your tracks very well, b) tell nobody about it (not even family) and c) don't brag about it to a crazy stranger.
You may consider leaving a sealed letter to be opened after your death. But you'd better hide it well. I am not aware of any governments that would honor a seal in a matter of national security.