0834: "Wikileaks"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

chrigu
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:44 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby chrigu » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:21 am UTC

The Original Wikileaks-Server IP is http://213.251.145.96/ list of mirrors http://213.251.145.96/mirrors.html you can test all the IPs if you want. (there are just 2174 mirrors ;-))

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:26 am UTC

I think what many people forget or chose to ignore is:

PROTIP: Don’t be so sure that what you see is actually Wikileaks, unless you trust all the involved parties/relays. Those are:
  • The server itself.
  • The ARP service.
  • If it’s used: The DNS service.
  • Every single router in-between.
  • Your computer, including all its system software.
  • Your browser.
  • You display.
  • Your eyes(!)
  • Your brain (Example: Schizophrenia. Including religious variants.)
For every item, this includes all people having access to it.
That’s an awful lot of people to trust. And you know very few of and very little about them.

Don’t get me wrong: Without trust, a working society would be impossible. But we weren’t meant for this. We were meant for groups of 20-50 people, where we could look every single one of them in the eyes, and he knew the harsh consequences of hurting his group.
I’m already in the process of developing a solution that allows societies of the size of ours to work like this again. But it will take time, because it’s far more developed than what anyone could imagine based on the above alone.

@Kanonfutter: There is no conflict. Privacy only applies to people. Governments are only legal and legitimate, if they have no privacy in front of their people at all. Companies are only legitimate, if they have no privacy in front of their employees at all. In fact, this can be generalized: A body/group (same thing) can only trust itself, if it doesn’t hide anything from itself. But a cell/individual can only exist, if it has a form of separation (shell/privacy) from the rest. True for cells, people, groups, states, ...

SoulSeekerHS
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:26 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby SoulSeekerHS » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:32 am UTC

While I did lough (especially at the alt-text tho), I feel the need to point this out:

1. No one is "in" Anonymous. If you feel like it, you take part in or organize an "event" yourself. There is no membership card, no hierarchy and no "base".

2. Wikileaks would not release those infos. Name, Address and Phonenumber.. thats exactly the thing wikileaks wont release.

But yeah, good idea and awesome alt-text :-)

archeleus
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:49 pm UTC
Location: Valenvaryon
Contact:

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby archeleus » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:41 am UTC

Lol'd.
I write a blog rant here.

User avatar
libra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:50 am UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby libra » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:13 am UTC

Of late, I've often thought "The whole Wikileaks/ Anonymous issue would make a great storyline for a sequel to Team America: World Police."

meerta
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:25 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby meerta » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:25 am UTC

Apart from the fact that Wikileaks wouldn't leak it (in fact everything they leaked at the moment is vetted by the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel etc. ir they are applying journalistic standards), there is a point made during a discussion between Clay Shirky and Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Clay Shirky on Newsnight on BBC2, that it would not even be possible to leak certain sets of data over the internet, for example everyone's user details on Facebook. The information is self-protected by the power of that group.

The discussion if anyone's interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9268808.stm

User avatar
axilog14
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:20 am UTC
Location: Manila, Philippines

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby axilog14 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:25 am UTC

I find the comic funny, just not really xkcd-funny. I can't explain it, the punchline just sounds like it was someone else's comedic style somehow.
Really was a matter of time though, it was inevitable for Randall to draw a Wikileaks-related comic.


.. heh heh heh heh, he said "dammit."
"Yes, my life is pathetic. But I still prefer it to the alternative!"

Peon
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Peon » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:10 am UTC

Alt text is so meta. And yeah, I can definitely see how you're saying the humor isn't xkcd's. It seems almost more Dinosaur Comics-esque.

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby dedwrekka » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:13 am UTC

black_hat_guy wrote:Anonymous is clearly a group of hypocrites. Although, I guess you could say that they can be secretive because it doesn't matter who they are, while the things wiki leaks reports on are.

You have to have a cohesive identity or goal to be a hypocrite. Anonymous is entirely capable of accidentally or intentionally trolling itself from both sides of an argument, as not all (or even many) members agree on every raid or issue. Considering Anonymous an entity is as coherent as considering the internet an entity.

Shmuel
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:58 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Shmuel » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:35 am UTC

Beg to differ with those who didn't find this funny or xkcd-esque. Reader, I LOL'd. And immediately forwarded it to a friend.

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby philip1201 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:04 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:I think what many people forget or chose to ignore is:

PROTIP: Don’t be so sure that what you see is actually Wikileaks, unless you trust all the involved parties/relays. Those are:
  • The server itself.
  • The ARP service.
  • If it’s used: The DNS service.
  • Every single router in-between.
  • Your computer, including all its system software.
  • Your browser.
  • You display.
  • Your eyes(!)
  • Your brain (Example: Schizophrenia. Including religious variants.)
For every item, this includes all people having access to it.
That’s an awful lot of people to trust. And you know very few of and very little about them.

Don’t get me wrong: Without trust, a working society would be impossible. But we weren’t meant for this. We were meant for groups of 20-50 people, where we could look every single one of them in the eyes, and he knew the harsh consequences of hurting his group.
I’m already in the process of developing a solution that allows societies of the size of ours to work like this again. But it will take time, because it’s far more developed than what anyone could imagine based on the above alone.

@Kanonfutter: There is no conflict. Privacy only applies to people. Governments are only legal and legitimate, if they have no privacy in front of their people at all. Companies are only legitimate, if they have no privacy in front of their employees at all. In fact, this can be generalized: A body/group (same thing) can only trust itself, if it doesn’t hide anything from itself. But a cell/individual can only exist, if it has a form of separation (shell/privacy) from the rest. True for cells, people, groups, states, ...


But every group but the very largest (currently the biosphere) is itself a cell of a larger group, and has by your rules a need, or perhaps even a right, to privacy/secrecy. And since you decide to generalize, it is a valid argument to point out it is proven to be beneficial (through evolution) that not the entire group (organism) is informed of all the actions of it's parts (autonomous nervous system). As such, your statement that privacy only applies to people is based on nothing: you give no reason why this particular level of organization has right to secrecy, while the higher ones can only be legitimate if they have none.
And yes, there is a conflict - much of the information the government needs to help you (medical records, school grades, etc.) is considered private. The information the government has is, by definition, privately known to its components (employees). As such, any information leaked from the government is simultaneously leaked from the privacy of certain government members. If the government has no secrets, then neither can any of the individuals who preform any action with the government - in other words, neither can anyone.
The government has records of your chat with your doctor about your <embarrassing affliction>. That you consider this private information, despite it being government knowledge, but do not consider the records of the chat between two diplomats about the odd habits of <foreign leader> private, is a conflict, one which you do not resolve.

I also do not understand what the point is of your list of intermediaries. You can expect (most of) them to act the same way as always because the situation is the same - basic induction. To trust them now is no harder than to trust g = 9.8(1) will be the case for as long as I live. Only the difference in situation is the untrustworthy part. This lies in nothing else but the exact page and affiliates, in which case one only needs to make it reasonably probable that there is no other thing called "wikileaks" on the internet fulfilling this particular role, which is still different.
I also do not see where you get the authority to decide what we humans were "meant for". Also, given the current state of our society, versus the tribal state you portray, I'm glad we didn't fulfill our "meaning" if it is indeed that. Unless you propose that, for some reason, living in an economically and socially fully independent group of 50-100 people, I do not understand why this "meaning" would have any moral or practical significance. This trust you attempt to decipher has worked perfectly well in our current society.

Anonymilf
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:17 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Anonymilf » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:20 pm UTC

The only thing that could have made this comic better would be the suit switching to an ascii facepalm for the last panel.

User avatar
Vnend
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Vnend » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:27 pm UTC

StClair wrote:Man kill other man, hit over head with stone tablet! Am "writing" harmful?
Elders: "You go too far!"


Dresden Codak reference for the win!

User avatar
TheSavageNorwegian
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:46 pm UTC
Location: Southwest Suburbs of the Twin Cities, Minnesota

Re: 0835: "Wikileaks"

Postby TheSavageNorwegian » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:28 pm UTC

Yikes, I'm glad he finally posted something regarding Wikileaks. That's all everyone seems to be obsessed with lately. Sort of like the Onion doing "Not knowing what else to do, woman bakes american flag cake" after 9-11.

User avatar
Vnend
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Vnend » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:37 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Did anyone read the speech from Anonymous in the voice of the borg?

Just me? OK. I'll be leaving now


No, but it isn't a bad idea. I don't think I have a single identifiable voice for it here, just a generic one with no (to me) accent. Ditto for other voices in XKCD, with the only real differences being for sex and sometimes identifiable age.

It is neat when I am reading a post and realize I am 'hearing' the text in the voice of someone I know, then look and find out that they were the poster.

BrokenSwitch
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby BrokenSwitch » Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:42 pm UTC

I was not surprised by any of Wikileak's revelations about the State Department-- all of it was already out there if you had good, unclassified sources and enough of a brain to see the trends. Wikileaks simply verified what I already knew or believed.

Secrecy can be used to protect individuals from physical harm, and abused to protect institutions from embarrassment. Wikileaks demonstrated failures in both categories.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:34 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Did anyone read the speech from Anonymous in the voice of the borg?


Ever since I saw "ScientLOLojyuuichi", I imagine Anonymous (at least the suit clip art version) as having the voice of Microsoft Sam.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

xnick
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:40 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby xnick » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

I totally didn't get any of this comic. Not even one panel. I'm lost!!

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

Aradae wrote:Obviously randall is telling us something. Now all we need is a date.

Are you implying that no one on the xkcd forums has a date?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

embolalia
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:33 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby embolalia » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:53 pm UTC

SoulSeekerHS wrote:There is no membership card, no hierarchy and no "base".

Of course there's a base. And it are belong to us! [/oldjoke]

xnick wrote:I totally didn't get any of this comic. Not even one panel. I'm lost!!

Try this. Or maybe this. Better?

thelastholdout
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:24 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby thelastholdout » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:56 pm UTC

Anonymous would not be hypocrites for wanting to keep their privacy yet support Wikileaks. In a government "from the people, by the people, for the people," there should be no secrets. Ever. Especially since the people are the ones who financially and physically support and pay for the government's actions. Not that government is necessary anyway.

I also do not think that "Wikileaks invades everyone's privacy!!!ONE" is Randall's opinion on Wikileaks. At least I hope it's not. Exposing actions of the government which are kept hidden from the public eye does not equal focusing on publishing everyone's identities and locations. Identity issues are only related to Wikileaks tangentially; many of the documents name names, sure, but Wikileaks has worked to try and redact any names of people who might be directly harmed by the release of the cables. They even tried to get the State Department to help. The State Department gave no answer and then promptly started whining about the release of the documents due to "names being in them and creating danger for people."

/end rant

Hermesdfo
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:08 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Hermesdfo » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:23 pm UTC

Yes, people deserve privacy, since is their own lives. No, Goverments do not deserve privacy, for they are a public entity, they are supposed to be the representation of what we, as a collective nation, believe to be the best. Yes, people who talk about themselves with some else, even a goverment dude, deserve privacy, for they are talking about something that only concerns themselves and the guy they want to talk with. People who speaks on behalf of the goverment (ergo, public opinion) better be thinking well what they speak, for they are supposed to represent the goverment we choose, and so their words are public.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby sje46 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Did anyone read the speech from Anonymous in the voice of the borg?


Just me? OK. I'll be leaving now

I heard it in the voice of Microsoft Sam. [/url]
alahos wrote:RAEP!
archeleus wrote:Lol'd.
Thank you for your insightful contributions.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Glenn Magus Harvey
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Glenn Magus Harvey » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:09 pm UTC

The irony of the comic was amusing, but far more amusing was the alt-text, which I really appreciated.

(Though a minor point of contention is why Randall drew a browser in MacOS.)

SuperfluousFluteMusic
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:52 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby SuperfluousFluteMusic » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:10 pm UTC

lol both true.

jozwa
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby jozwa » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:20 pm UTC

I don't know where that "Dammit, Julian" expression is originally from (or if it's an expression itfp), but it always reminds of the same line on a stupid TV soap opera called Passions.

User avatar
the_bandersnatch
Actually not so frumious.
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 am UTC
Location: on a bed in a room inside a TV in a hotel room in a hotel on a Monopoly board

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby the_bandersnatch » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:26 pm UTC

jozwa wrote:I don't know where that "Dammit, Julian" expression is originally from (or if it's an expression itfp), but it always reminds of the same line on a stupid TV soap opera called Passions.


It's because the founder of Wikileaks is called Julian Assange. I'm not aware of "Dammit, Julian" being an "expression" other than it's use as an exclamation in this here comic.

Any similarity to soap operas current or past is purely coincidental.
In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni

tesseraktik
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby tesseraktik » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Did anyone read the speech from Anonymous in the voice of the borg?
Yes.
Sytri wrote:I'll be leaving now
DISTANCE IS FUTILE.
ni'o mi nelci le zirpu sovmabrnornitorinku
Spoiler:
++$_ wrote:What's a "degree"?

EDIT: I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it's some ancient Babylonian unit for angles :/

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby neoliminal » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:41 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:I think what many people forget or chose to ignore is:

PROTIP: Don’t be so sure that what you see is actually Wikileaks, unless you trust all the involved parties/relays. Those are:
  • The server itself.
  • The ARP service.
  • If it’s used: The DNS service.
  • Every single router in-between.
  • Your computer, including all its system software.
  • Your browser.
  • You display.
  • Your eyes(!)
  • Your brain (Example: Schizophrenia. Including religious variants.)


I stopped using my own eyes after reading Gibson. I have commercial eyes now and I sure I can trust them.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
jc
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby jc » Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:... But we weren’t meant for this. We were meant for groups of 20-50 people, where we could look every single one of them in the eyes, and he knew the harsh consequences of hurting his group. ...


Actually, this issue has been addressed by biologists and other related *-ists. The most likely group that we were "meant for", in a biological/evolutionary sense is the deme, and for humans, that's known to be about 600 people. This is a factor-of-two size, of course, meaning that a deme that grows to around 1200 people will split, while demes that die off to around 300 people tend to merge with neighbors.

This is actually not a real criticism; it's more acknowledging the basic idea as correct while raising the size by an order of magnitude. The "deme" is roughly the group that the typical human knows and cares about in a meaningful sense. The number differs for other species, of course. What's really interesting is that the concept works fairly well with plants and other critters without a nervous system. Of course, they can't know or care for each other. But the biological definition based on interbreeding works more widely than one might believe possible. How plants manage to implement it isn't well understood.

Doom Shepherd
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Doom Shepherd » Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:47 pm UTC

Hermesdfo wrote:Yes, people deserve privacy, since is their own lives. No, Goverments do not deserve privacy, for they are a public entity, they are supposed to be the representation of what we, as a collective nation, believe to be the best. Yes, people who talk about themselves with some else, even a goverment dude, deserve privacy, for they are talking about something that only concerns themselves and the guy they want to talk with. People who speaks on behalf of the goverment (ergo, public opinion) better be thinking well what they speak, for they are supposed to represent the goverment we choose, and so their words are public.


So, what's your opinion of Operations Fortitide and Bodyguard, and would you have supported the leaking of those secrets to the general public at the time, had yourself and WikiLeaks both existed then?

User avatar
vviipp
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, CA
Contact:

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby vviipp » Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:31 pm UTC

"First Amendment rules, privacy drools!"

...so would said "leak" be put in the files in the Cold War bunker in Stockholm?

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby StClair » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:30 pm UTC

neoliminal wrote:I stopped using my own eyes after reading Gibson. I have commercial eyes now and I sure I can trust them.

"If only you could see the things I've seen with your eyes."

meerta
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:25 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby meerta » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:08 pm UTC

@Doom Shepherd

If I may, I would like to engage with your point. I accept Operations Fortitude and Bodyguard should have been kept secret, as they were. But what your point comes down to seems to be that, if any government secrets should/must be secret, then all must be secret. But then governments themselves are known to deliberately leak secrets frequently for their own strategic purposes. It is also easy to argue that the leakage of the Pentagon Papers, not by a government, [i]should [/i ]have been done, as it was. So to generalise that NO secrets should ever be leaked leaves you in the absurd position that governments are always wrong to leak their own official secrets and that others should not leak them in order always to protect the systematic lies and deceit of governments. Then the are the issues of foreign espionage etc.

In short, anyone betraying Operations Fortitude and Bodyguard would have been guilty of HIgh Treason, but this is no reason for blanket condemnation of Wikileaks, which does not publish everything it receives but applies journalistic standards as a newspaper would when deciding whether to publish a leak.

meerta
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:25 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby meerta » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:10 pm UTC

Even shorter: WikiLeaks, as it is, wouldn't have published details of Operations Fortitude and Bodyguard.

hatten
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:18 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby hatten » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:19 am UTC

mcv wrote:
black_hat_guy wrote:Anonymous is clearly a group of hypocrites.

Anonymous are script kiddies mostly. It's been called a mindless collective. Not sure what that is, but it's basically a mob. When they get upset, they wreak havoc, but they don't really think all that much about what they do.

You sure about that?
Image
Slashdot, 13 december.

I thought the comic was hilarious, probably because I just spent some time discussing anon with a friend.

pennypyro
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:59 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby pennypyro » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Glenn Magus Harvey wrote:The irony of the comic was amusing, but far more amusing was the alt-text, which I really appreciated.

(Though a minor point of contention is why Randall drew a browser in MacOS.)


I liked the alt text too.
It reminded me of when i found a book about the US Presidents, and i was wondering which one was the last in the book...and it was LBJ. Maaaaan, that thing needs updating.

Hermesdfo
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:08 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby Hermesdfo » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:19 am UTC

Doom Shepherd wrote:
So, what's your opinion of Operations Fortitide and Bodyguard, and would you have supported the leaking of those secrets to the general public at the time, had yourself and WikiLeaks both existed then?


As far as i can tell, and knowing that i sound naive, there wouldn't be a need for operations like that if every goverment would have done what they're meant to do: seek the well being of people without messing with other nations. Might be pure idealism, but i'm quite sure everyone expect his goverment to be ideal. Lies are only actually needed when there is a conflict, and conflicts are usually started by lies.

holshy
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 5:49 am UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby holshy » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:20 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:PROTIP: Don’t be so sure that what you see is actually Wikileaks, unless you trust all the involved parties/relays. Those are:
  • The server itself.
  • The ARP service.
  • If it’s used: The DNS service.
  • Every single router in-between.
  • Your computer, including all its system software.
  • Your browser.
  • You display.
  • Your eyes(!)
  • Your brain (Example: Schizophrenia. Including religious variants.)
For every item, this includes all people having access to it.
That’s an awful lot of people to trust. And you know very few of and very little about them.
That's an excellent list. However, I'm don't trust one of the routers between you and the xkcd forum server. Therefore, you're entire post *must* be disregarded. I'm going to go back to my little whole now, where I never use any piece of telecommunication, because trusting is too dangerous.

User avatar
ysth
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Re: 0834: "Wikileaks"

Postby ysth » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:49 am UTC

the_bandersnatch wrote:the founder of Wikileaks is called Julian Assange.

Yclept "Julian Assange", called many things.
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ApekHeksepher and 44 guests