Assange == Auction the leaks? Lamo was a Honeypot and other tales from the Wikileaks Underbelly; Plus Hushmail a bust

Vatican Endorses "The Blues Brothers" - ABC News - nothing else matters too much.

"The issue here is that Assange and Manning (the primary source of Wikileaks Iraq and Afghanistan leaks) hoped to jointly profit by selling some of the data by auction" -- Supposed "Wikileaks Insider" @ Cryptome


[Adrian] Lamo, who currently works as a journalist and security expert, says that the situation was anything but ordinary. He states, "People confess federal crimes to me every day and I don't turn them in. But those cases didn't have this kind of national security risk."

He says that Manning's initial leaks might have been justified. He says, "Certainly, releasing the gun cam footage would have been something I would have done in his place." Jason Mick -

Response from chromal: "People confess federal crimes to me every day and I don't turn them in. Uh, something tells me that not anymore, they don't." LOL


Oh yikes -- Cryptome's John Young is still on a tear versus Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Pesky though, there was a funny one about Adrian Lamo the honeypot, but Cryptome remarks roll so quickly off the front page and Young has blocked the bot. Blah...

Additionally I was sent a link to an interview with the aptly named ex-hacker Lamo, who turned in Bradley Manning for talking about classified materials. Tip for leakers: don't count on someone who settled a plea with the Feds, if for no other reason than they may have more permanent strings attached.

Wayne Madsen claimed Wikileaks as essentially a Quantum Fund/Soros-friendly front (zapping the Swiss Bank Julius Baer's depositor data in order to obliterate its value, and make it ripe for a Goldman/Quantum takeover!). Madsen alleges that for years Assange was kind of a honeypot himself, a high profile front man there to catch more Mannings & dispose of them. Too bad there's been so much decent work product.

The video release, allegedly via Manning, of an Afghan military massacre is impending. DailyBeast (in the post Posner era of rebuilding :P ) "Assange acknowledges in the email today that he is in custody of the May 2009 video that shows the airstrike on the Afghan village of Garani, believed to be the most lethal combat strike in Afghanistan—in terms of civilian deaths—since the United States invaded the country in 2001. Assange writes that “we are still working on” preparations for release of the video of 'the Garani massacre.' "

Weekly Standard has a lol: Is Wikileaks Secure? | The Weekly Standard. Turns out Hushmail spills the beans all too easily - surprise!

But first, a couple more fun ones... Good times with the Oath Keepers in Mother Jones.

Corporate news complains Mexican armed cartels are getting "three counties" into Arizona. Wonder how far the drug money gets? More in New Yawrker. [Bonus points tho: Assange forwarded a key early Gary Webb CIA-Contra story in 1996 onto Cypherpunks, so hat tip there. With luck the State Dept CableDump will totally prove more modern Afghan Drug LOL OPS all around? We can has dreamz]

Michael Ruppert's back, now on the amusing Keiser Report with Max Keiser. Now this is economic news I can handle:

European Union law sux.


So let's get to whatever Mr Young at Cryptome is putting out there, FYIz:

Young posted Assange posts from Cypherpunks email listserv 1995-2002. "Wikileaks will throw Manning to the Dogs"

   Via PGPboard, 14 June 2010:

Cryptome published the following:-

Quote [From:]

He said that Julian Assange had offered him (Manning) a position at Wikileaks. But he said,” I’m not interested right now. Too much excess baggage.”


There will never be any transcripts of Manning's communications with Assange. The issue here is that Assange and Manning (the primary source of Wikileaks Iraq and Afghanistan leaks) hoped to jointly profit by selling some of the data by auction to interested news and media organisations such as AFP, Reuters and CNN, and several British daily newspapers.

Assange will throw Manning to the dogs. As we speak, Assange will not accept any communications from Manning. Manning will be hung out to dry in order to cover Assange’s ass.

A Wikileaks Insider   


15 June 2010. Based on spelling errors and syntax, this message does not appear to be written by Julian Assange, perhaps by someone on his behalf. Could be a forgery to gather data on WL supporters. To protect identity of supporters, WL is usually careful to authenticate its communications. However, security may be lax due to the furor roiling WL into losing control of opsec discipline -- the very technique Bradley Manning asserts led to the Army's negligence into protecting its assets from him. Not that what Lamo and Paulsen claim Manning chatted has been authenticated. More likely, the usual threats, lies, disinfo, exaggeration and braggardy are being spread to advance seemingly competing interests. Seemingly. Could be mutual back-scratching, the secretkeepers' and secret peddlers' most-favored operation. No threat, no need for secrets, no market for leaks. Best to work together to fleece the gullible with national security confidence gaming.   


Wikileaks crib notes!

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:21:43 +0200
To: cypherpunks[at], info[at]
Subject: WikiLeaks inspired "New media haven" proposal passes Parliament

----- Forwarded message from Julian Assange <julian[at]> -----

From: Julian Assange <julian[at]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:20:18 +0100 (BST)
To: eugen[at]
Subject: WikiLeaks inspired "New media haven" proposal passes Parliament


Reykjavik, Iceland; 4:00 UTC, June 16th 2010.

The WikiLeaks advised proposal to build an international
"new media haven" in Iceland, with the world's strongest
press and whistleblower protection laws, and a "Nobel" prize for 
for Freedom of Expression, has unaminously passed the
Icelandic Parliament.

50 votes were cast in favor, zero against, one abstained. Twelve
members of parliament were not present. Vote results are available

One of the inspirations for the proposal was the dramatic August 2009 gagging of
of Iceland's national broadcaster, RUV by Iceland's then largest bank, Kaupthing:

Two changes were made to the proposal from its original form as per
the opinion of the parliament's general affairs committee
[]. The first of these
altered slightly the wording of the first paragraph so as to widen
the arena for research. The second of these added two new items to
the list of tasks for the government:

   - That the government should perform a detailed analysis,
     especially with respect to operational security,
     for the prospect of operating data centers in Iceland.

   - That the government should organize an international conference
     in Iceland regarding the changes to the legal environment being caused
     by expansion of cloud computing, data havens, and the judicial state
     of the Internet.

Video footage from the proposal's vote will be available at:

For details of the proposal and press contacts, please see

Blog Title: Is Wikileaks Secure?

Your Email Address: jya[at]

Your Comment:

Wikileaks communications security is well beyond that of Hushmail which is known to be weak by comsec followers. This is not to suggest that national-grade countermeasures could not break Wikileaks protection. More likely is that national-grade surveillance of Wikileaks and similar providers of hard to get governmental and banned information is a continuing covert operation.

Online surveillance by authorities is common, either by direct access to worldwide Internet infrastructure or by cooperation of Internet Service Providers and commercial firms which provide hardware and software for digital communications and are obliged by law to provide lawful access to user data. There are a number of lawful spying guides available on the Internet, many hosted on and elsewhere.

Wikileaks is assuredly aware of these invasive practices and its protection for communications is far superior to commercially-provided protection which is so weak that it verges on being criminally deceptive.

National authorities unfortunately are not accountable to the public for its surveillance of lawful activities, and Wikileaks is justified in helping increase accountability, including that related to national security which is excessively hidden from the public by secrecy amok.

John Young


   A send via PGPboard, 15 June 2010:



What most people don't realise is just how WIKILEAKS internal structure resembles an absolute dictatorship. Forget the invisible nine so called board members composed of technologists and media representatives, they do not exist, and they never have.

Forget about Daniel Schmitt, one of WIKILEAKS public faces, he is of absolutely no consequence and has no influence, editorial or otherwise within WIKILEAKS.

WIKILEAKS is, and always has been the brain child of Julian Assange, a convicted ex hacker, who's original concept was to attach a value to leaked information, and sell it to the highest bidder. From an initial base of approximately eight high value sponsors, and an Internet community ready to buy into Assange's snake oil of protecting the whistleblower by guaranteeing anonymity based upon technological means and legal support if the smelly stuff really hit the fan..!!

WIKILEAKS is essentially a one man band, with a core of unpaid volunteers, who provide all of the grunt work and server space for WIKILEAKS. There is no huge bill for server space. Assange fronts for an organisational infrastructure donated gratis by others. So you may justifiably ask just how much does it cost to run WIKILEAKS?

The basic expenses incurred by WIKILEAKS such as minor running expenses, paying for the server space that is not donated, and communications costs is approximately $55K per year. This figure excludes Assange's so called promotional expenses, which include international travel in business class, hotel accommodation, taxis, clothing, and personal expenses. For FY 2009 and YTD, these are estimated to be in excess of $225,000.

There are no internal accounts at WIKILEAKS accurately detailing expenditure of monies received from donors, and Assange has no visible income streams.

Unfortunately for Assange, his involvement with whistleblower Manning, was originally based upon trying to sell US government leaked information to the Media is not working, and has seriously back-fired. The link between Manning and Assange is strong. So strong in fact, that Assange has been desperately trying to erase all evidence of email trails on WIKILEAKS servers.

Assange's latest ploy is a variation on his usual, "They're out to get me" routine. He is now using the ploy that WIKILEAKS needs a cash infusion to meet the expenses incurred in flying a legal team out to Kuwait to defend Manning. I'm sorry to say that this is an absolute misrepresentation. Assange won't even speak or communicate directly with Manning. WIKILEAKS cannot afford the high level team that would be required to defend Manning. Currently WIKILEAKS have received no pro bono offers.

Again Assange is relying upon the Internet community to stump up the cash, with no clear audit trail of disbursements and expenditure

The philosophy behind WIKILEAKS is good, unfortunately Assange has run out of goodwill from WIKILEAKS original contributors.


Wikileaks Insider

********** Wikileaks Funding Drive

Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:09:14 +0100
From: Walshingham2000 <pgpboard[at]>
To: cryptome[at]


Julian Assange's very public fund raising campaign has effectively
stalled with past and potential investors fading into the
background. As previously indicated it is NOT the philosophy of
WIKILEAKS that is in question, but Assange's credibility. 

The lack of any significant high rollers backing Assange has led
to a significant change of direction concerning fund raising.
These are paid interviews and appearances, and appeals to the
internet community to send money.

Keeping in mind that Assange has publicly stated that he needs
$200,000 USD just to keep the lights on, and $600,000 USD to be
fully funded; then just how much has Assange received, how much
has been spent, and on what? A pressing point when one
considered WIKILEAKS is still effectively closed down, and
Assange continues to enjoy a particularly luxurious lifestyle in
South Africa with no comparable income streams.

From information received, since January 2010 WIKILEAKS income
until end of April 2010 has been:

Internet Donations:         $132,347 USD

Media Interviews etc.     $82,892 USD

Sponsorships:                 $28,657 USD

The total income YTD is $243,896 USD.  Then why aren't the
lights on at WIKILEAKS Mr. Assange?? When will you provide
audited accounts of WIKILEAKS operating expenditure??

Finally, just keep in mind that Assange has not abandoned the
concept of selling information by auction to media groups on an
exclusive basis. Now just where does that fit into WIKILEAKS
philosophy? To put it brutally, it does not, it's a scheme
designed exclusively to fill Assange offshore bank accounts..



HUSHMAIL FAIL, another bit from Cryptome:

   A2 sends:

What would be a better anonymous email service as compared to hushmail?

Cryptome: Don't know of one. Might double-up by encrypting the message prior to sending by Hushmail. Use a Hushmail address only once. Don't send from you own computer. Use a strange computer only once. Be wary of any "secure" comms. Encryption is never enough by itself and it betrays by leaving evidence of its usage and transmission track. Anything digital is penetrable. The Internet and email are especially insecure ways to communicate. Sec experts suggest the old standby snail mail remains the best means short of an armed courier. Best of all is to keep very quiet.


Alright that's it for now -- beware, tinfoil hats actually amplify certain freqs!

Commenting on this Story is closed.

Tags for Assange == Auction the leaks? Lamo was a Honeypot and other tales from the Wikileaks Underbelly; Plus Hushmail a bust