The UK Guardian newspaper announces:
A statement from the Guardian said: "It's nonsense to suggest the Guardian's WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way.Wait a minute. The UK Guardian published the password in a book? That password was used to decrypt the WikiLeaks archives, but the newspaper says that the book did not compromise security in any way? This is as false as can be.
"Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.
You can read Schneier's account of the leak. The password was so sensitive that Julian Assange refused to write the whole password on a piece of paper when he gave it to the Guardian.
The other newspapers are also lying to protect each other from criticism:
LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks disclosed its entire archive of U.S. State Department cables Friday, much if not all of it uncensored — a move that drew stinging condemnation from major newspapers which in the past collaborated with the anti-secrecy group's efforts to expose corruption and double-dealing.WikiLeaks did not make any decision to make those cables available to the public. It only gave the password to selected newspapers.
Many media outlets, including The Associated Press, previously had access to all or part of the uncensored tome. But WikiLeaks' decision to post the 251,287 cables on its website makes potentially sensitive diplomatic sources available to anyone, anywhere at the stroke of a key. American officials have warned that the disclosures could jeopardize vulnerable people such as opposition figures or human rights campaigners.
A joint statement published on the Guardian's website said that the British publication and its international counterparts — The New York Times, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais — "deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted State Department cables, which may put sources at risk."
For the Guardian to publish a book, it probably had dozens of editors read and review the book before publication. Surely some of them pointed out that publishing a super-sensitive password is foolish. The paper probably asked reviewer to specifically check for whether sensitive info is being released. If the Guardian failed to do this, then it was truly irresponsible.
The left-wing bias of the press is well-documented, but this is very blatant dishonesty.