57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 10:12 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Quote:
Obv you and your tittering friend are expending great energy and pixels arguing about 2 when you know we are talking about 1.

Not really that much energy.
For me, it actually was an interesting treat: remembering what I'd learnt in school 60 years ago and studied later at universities in Germany and England.

hightor wrote:
Your own reality has nothing to do with factual history, it is merely a convenient way of telling a story from a favorable, rather than an objective, position.
The latter is exactly what you learn not to do when you study history. Repeated in the first semester, in case you have forgotten it from school lessons.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 11:07 am
Assange is an interesting case. I think there is no doubt that he provided a platform to reveal things the US government was doing that people needed to know about. I think there is also little doubt that Assange was working hand in hand with powers that were actively trying to interfere in US politics and he almost certainly knew that he was not releasing information from whistleblowers but from state actors engaging in hacking and he was doing it in such a way to maximize their impact and to attempt to legitimize the information. Did he shine some light on nefarious activities? Yes. Did he put informers around the world in danger from hostile governments? Yes. Did he demand, under threat of heavy penalties, that his own employees sign non-disclosure agreements? Yes.

Quote:
Now, the receiver of that agreement has come forward to discuss it. James Ball, a data journalist for the Guardian, wrote of how a mis-sent tweet released the agreement into the public sphere, but that he’s now come to realize it should be there.

Ball had meant to send the agreement to someone on Twitter through a private direct message, but instead he sent it out to the public. It could have cost him a pretty penny because even revealing the existence of the agreement was a breach of the agreement — however Ball never signed it.

“I refused to sign Julian Assange's confidentiality agreement because it would have been not just ironic, but dangerous,” he writes. Assange defends the belief that whistleblowing is the only way to keep an organization accountable, but then asks his volunteers to never leak any information. “It has no board, or no oversight. If any organization in the world relies on whistleblowers to keep it honest, it is WikiLeaks.”


For a guy who is all about transparency, he sure seems to have a lot he wants to hide. The short of it is that no matter how many good things you do, you are still accountable for the bad things and Assange seems to have done some bad things.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 11:11 am
@engineer,
I don't think anyone is saying Assange is a nice person I think he's pretty repulsive, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to have him extradited to America.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 11:52 am
@izzythepush,
Priti Patel's (the UK's home secretary) earlier main decisions were the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and the fumbled response to helping refugees from Ukraine find safe harbour in Britain.
And now she delivered a disaster for investigative journalism, free speech, and a fillip for repressive regimes everywhere.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 11:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Boris Johndon had a story about his wife pulled from The Times five hours after publication.

That's what they think about free speech.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2022 01:32 pm
@izzythepush,
It is not unusual for British or other Eurpean papers to apologize for articles, or retract them. (Libel law!)
But removing an article during a press run is so unusual as to be extraordinary, and the lack of ("good") answers until now, that speaks volumes.
Builder
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2022 04:02 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Your own reality has nothing to do with factual history, it is merely a convenient way of telling a story from a favorable, rather than an objective, position


And you're still struggling with the concept that "factual history" is not factual, nor actual.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2022 04:52 am


There are two Commons statements today after PMQs, which are both likely to appeal to Brexiters:
- Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, will give one on the bill of rights bill being published today*, and he will be followed by
- Jacob Rees-Mogg, the minister for Brexit opportunities, who will speak about plans to get rid of some retained EU law.

*The European Court of Human Rights banned the British government from deportation flights to Rwanda. Now London is planning a new law to be able to ignore rulings from Strasbourg.
The UK has so far refused to withdraw from the Human Rights Convention, as only Russia has done so until today.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2022 05:04 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The source stands by their story. Chris Bryant the chair of the House of Commons standards committee has been asked to investigate as there is no adviser on ethics anymore.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2022 05:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, said a couple of minutes ago that his plans will strengthen freedom of speech. And it will recognise the right to jury trial - “something which is not prevalent on the continent but he’s very much part of the heritage and the pedigree of this country”.
His plans will strengthen freedom of speech. And it will recognise the right to jury trial - "something which is not prevalent on the continent but he’s very much part of the heritage and the pedigree of this country".


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 10:25:16