Page 1 of 4
More on Assange
Posted: 12/25/10, 7:35 pm
His hacker roots are fascinating... Here's the first part of a documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_ ... r_embedded
Posted: 12/26/10, 5:53 am
why is everyone so fascinated by this guy?
Posted: 12/26/10, 11:07 am
RedRage wrote:why is everyone so fascinated by this guy?
That's what I keep asking myself.
Just because you can yell fire in a crowded theater doesn't mean you should.
Posted: 12/26/10, 5:20 pm
He's doing the job 21st century journalism seems to have abdicated. He's exposing governmental and corporate fraud and deceit. He's forcing reform.
Posted: 12/27/10, 1:46 am
I don't think its effective journalism...all it will do is force the powers that be to take other measures to make sure these things do not see the light of day and make it more difficult to expose things in the future. This isn't whistle-blowing this is fog-horn level. While good in theory and philosophy....it will only come back to bite everyone concerned I feel....even the average man. I'm aware of fraud and deceit in the government....as in all governments. Where only concerned when we feel as if they are deceiving us.
Posted: 12/27/10, 2:41 am
OK, then John. What's the alternate plan? What's the alternative to outing bad behavior publicly? Keep it hidden so secret government commissions can investigate and impose the proper reforms? How's that working out?
Watch the documentary--especially the portion about the helicopter murders. And then tell me these things shouldn't be revealed.
Posted: 12/27/10, 5:00 am
I'm not saying they shouldn't be revealed....they should, but I think in this context they will do more harm than good. Open the sluice-gate.....don't destroy the dam.
Posted: 12/27/10, 6:16 am
If Wikileaks didn't release info that was given to them then they would be sending the wrong message to future leakers, it's that simple. The choice of weather something gets leaked or not almost solely lies with the leaker. Wikileaks tries to make sure nobody is put in physical danger as a result of the information they release, but in order to be trusted they can't do much more than that.
Wikileaks is about giving control back to individuals. If they were to start heavily censoring the information they received then they would become part of the problem which already exists in traditional journalism.
I believe we are seeing the start of an Internet lead revolution and it's about time.
Posted: 12/27/10, 9:28 am
I still think your missing the point.....I for one agree with your perception...it's a good thing in essence. But to wholesale dump everything at once, regardless of the repercussions to anyone is irresponsible. Most of these things need to come to light.....but most of them are only going to make tense international relationships even tenser. These little bullshit communiques about President so and so being a twit or Premier whoever is a dumb-ass ...are absolutely unnecessary to be released. Embarrassing someone helps diplomacy not one bit. Even you and I expect a reasonable level of privacy in our communications and I think we should respect communications between individuals on the same level. How would you like to live in an environment where every conversation you had was recorded and then released to the public. Not me. Like the former Soviet Union.... and present day Russia is not far behind that in dealing with its citizens. The land of the free is not so free everywhere.
Posted: 12/27/10, 9:46 am
Gerry wrote: The choice of weather something gets leaked or not almost solely lies with the leaker.
And this particular persons motivation was what??? I'm sure he disseminated "all" those documents meticulously before he leaked them. Very responsible action to turn them over to someone that from the outset that says we are only the messenger and we have no culpability in any of this. Most of this borders if not crosses over into Yellow Journalism.
Good tabloid reading for the supermarket checkout line.
This is not some "new" frontier. Assange really went to extreme lengths to protect his source....didn't he?
Posted: 12/27/10, 5:10 pm
But to wholesale dump everything at once, regardless of the repercussions to anyone is irresponsible.
Not sure I follow you. This was not just a posting of documents on the internet. The last batches (the diplomatic cables) were released by Assange to the NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel and La Monde for vetting (in part to to delete names of individuals in harm's way, in part to organize the material and gauge its significance) and the actual release to the public was handled by those newspapers.
As for the primary leaker--the news stories say that Manning was betrayed by Adrian Lamo (another old-time hacker, but not involved with Wikileaks), in whom Manning had confided. It is unclear to me whether Manning is denying leaking the documents now.
Also of interest, "The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has said he has never spoken with Private Manning and does not know who is behind the leaks. WikiLeaks technology was “designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material,” Mr. Assange told ABC News."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26 ... ?src=twrhp
Posted: 12/27/10, 5:50 pm
Information needs the light of day. It was interesting to find out that Shell Oil has its hand in Nigeria's pants to the extent it has. What does that say about other 'relationships' Shell has? How are they doing business with us?
Knowing there is transparency redefines how we communicate with each other. Criticism of world leaders that might be embarrassing and in essence trivial should not be said at all. How productive is that?
Knowing that BP Shell and others have control over nations is astounding.
Posted: 12/27/10, 9:05 pm
JohnT wrote:but most of them are only going to make tense international relationships even tenser.
Yes this is obvious to everybody.
JohnT wrote:Embarrassing someone helps diplomacy not one bit.
JohnT wrote:Even you and I expect a reasonable level of privacy in our communications and I think we should respect communications between individuals on the same level. How would you like to live in an environment where every conversation you had was recorded and then released to the public.
If I was a leader of a country I would assume that all my secrets aren't really secret at all and act accordingly. All understood, however same old isn't working any more. This does make diplomacy harder, both sides of the argument know that John, but this side just thinks it's worth the price.
Posted: 12/27/10, 11:31 pm
yup still don't get it. I can't see one valid argument that posting these documents for everyone to see in a manner like this is a good thing.
maybe if the data was 15 years old sure, really doesn't matter any more and is a part of history
Posted: 12/28/10, 12:05 am
@Red its relevance is lost and therefore its power to influence and change what we do and how we do left moot.
Velocity and capacity change everything. Should this be a luxury left to ppl who perceive themselves as the ruling class?
This whole thing is about sociological influence. Us common folk should not have access to information that
is relevant and temporal.
That is only for the rich.
Ever hear of gentrification?
Sociology and information go hand in hand. You can't separate the two.
The national security argument is bullshit. A private walked off with the goods. Can you imagine what is beyond his security level?