57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:56 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

We're acting like hysterical buffoons and it is we, not wikileaks, who are generating all that "anti-Americanism" worldwide.


That's so true!
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:58 am
@CalamityJane,
Thanks Jane - I hope more of us will speak out so this stupid policy of our government changes a.s.a.p.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:00 pm
@CalamityJane,
Fair enough. I don't need repeat myself anymore, and im not interested in being "badgered" either.

Another angle...

So we accept that thing like wikipedia aren't going away. In fact I'd say it's probably more likely that other org similarto WL are bound to rise. This is in fact what some people who have left WL have stated they plan to do.

So now let's say a whistleblower releases documents to three WL like sites. Two of which determine that the documents are legitimate. Now wither there is a bias or not, there is now a new problem.

We've already seen this kind of thing in terms of the general development o the Internet and the information age in general.

So if clarity is to be considered a part of openness (I'd certainly hope so), then it seems that we have an interest in understanding our sources of information.

I simply don't think that WL is going to provide the roadmap to some society of openness. We should be talking about solutions, and I find it odd that I should have to convince anyone on that.

A
R
T
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:15 pm
@failures art,
First, I appreciate your change of heart.
---
Secondly, what solution are you talking about? WL is a messenger just like
any other printed or online source. You and I have to make educated guesses as what to believe and what not.

A small example is the source of Wandel's small Utah town paper. He believes the editor in chief there has merit and speaks for a large majority of people. I on the other hand (and others here expressed that too) think that Wandel's highway of information is an unpaved, winding road that leads to a private home.

Bottom line is: in order to form an educated opinion, we have to read
from many available sources and luckily the internet is our tool to do so.
In the old days, you had to subscribe to "The Guardian", "DER SPIEGEL"
"Le Monde" and any other newspaper if you want a broader political view.
Today it's much easier to get your information and it is up to you to
decide what you want to believe. However, I do not think it is fair to just
take the American approach here and stand behind its government just
because....
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:24 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Wandel - since you're the only legal eagle posting on this page so far I'd like to ask your opinion on this part of the editorial:
Quote:
How else can you explain
the so-called "poison pill" of documents that
Assange said would be released if he is harmed? Is
it really to protect him? If WikiLeaks is really
supposed to be about public service, why not
release those documents now?

That's an idiotic question on the face of it - WikiLeaks is under no obligation to observe anybody else's timetable. As I understand international law he cannot be extradited from England because he's a Commonwealth citizen; for the same reason he is provided with no consular services.

But if he's sent to Sweden, he can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, which can result in a death sentence. Most European countries will not extradite anybody unless they get an assurance from the US that the death penalty will not apply to the accused. Sweden will ask the same.

Even if he were only faced with life imprisonment, not execution, it makes perfect sense to be keeping a little information reserve somewhere. I find this persecution (per-, not only pro-) completely baseless and idiotic as I don't see what law the man has broken in the US. We're acting like hysterical buffoons and it is we, not wikileaks, who are generating all that "anti-Americanism" worldwide.


The poison pill does make perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense to claim politics as a defense against a sex abuse charge.

The persecution continues. Barbara Walters omitted Assange from her list of the 10 Most Fascinating People of 2010.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:29 pm
Oh well then it's settled, Barbara Walters has removed him - probably due to network pressures, but let's not look at the big picture here.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:54 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
300 hundred new "mirrors" have sprung up since this charade started - nobody can shut down all of them


I hope you're right (I suspect you are) but that doesn't stop Google from blanking them from their results. They're already turning up as distinct IP addresses rather than domain names - and Google is pretty much universal for finding sites on the web. If China can pressure Google into blocking sites I'm sure the US govt can.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 01:58 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1885 sites (updated 2010-12-12 11:54 GMT)
[...]
http://www.wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Which comes from the first result when googling: wikipedia
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:06 pm
@hingehead,
hinge,
facebook has not shut down WL either. I follow WL from there...
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:07 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
So now let's say a whistleblower releases documents to three WL like sites. Two of which determine that the documents are legitimate. Now wither there is a bias or not, there is now a new problem.


That's an easy one - the legitimate sites will be the one US twists its laws and wields its influence to try and have crushed. Wink

Seriously FA - how does a journalist know which tip from which informant is believable? And even when they're fooled how long before everyone figures it out? I don't think a few journalistic errors pose as much threat to society as a government that can lie with impunity.

The web (and life) is full of spurious information - we decide what is crap all the time. Do you think that even now people read the WL cables accept that what they say is absolute truth? It's one person reporting on an event or situation - it's no less biased than journalism.

I think you're right to think about the implications of wikileaks but I think we're all sitting too close to the screen to see the big picture just yet.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:13 pm
Quote:
On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[121] The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",[122] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[123] According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.


Hard to believe that Obama received the Nobel price for peace, isn't it?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:16 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yeah I mentioned that Walter. Wouldn't you expect the actual site to be first? - that 'I'm feeling lucky' would jump straight to it?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:19 pm
@CalamityJane,
Hi CJ - I'd say 'has not shut down YET'. If Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Amazon can be swayed I'm not feeling supremely confident no other US-based or US-involved company won't also be swayed. I think it's the public backlash that's giving those companies pause.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 02:23 pm
@hingehead,
hinge,
I think facebook is in a league of its own and Zuckerman has vouched to give
WL unlimited access to facebook. They (US) cannot possibly shut down facebook, that would be an international backlash at the U.S.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:09 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Oh well then it's settled, Barbara Walters has removed him - probably due to network pressures, but let's not look at the big picture here.

I agree that Barbara Walters should not be taken as a compass, but not every rejection of Assange or WikiLeaks should be inflated to this level of conspiracy.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:22 pm
@hingehead,
Good questions, all.

The one that jumps off the page:
Quote:
Do you think that even now people read the WL cables accept that what they say is absolute truth? It's one person reporting on an event or situation - it's no less biased than journalism.


One of the things, I had not thought about until right now is that the cables in some form or another represent a personal bias of the author. If upon reading these cables, people are projecting the bias of the original author to be more significant because it was once secret, then doesn't that accidentally perpetuate the original narrative of the author and their bias?

So if we observe China (for example) and write about it, there is nothing to say in a cable if we are on the spot or completely off on our read of the situation. Once that cable is out, the assumption is that the bias of the author is more significant due to it's previous secrecy.

As for if people reading WL believe everything that is posted, the mentality I'm seeing is that it must be true. It was secret. Having said that, I've not personally seen or read anything that seemed false. Selective perhaps, but not false.

I think the India-Pakistan false leak last week demonstrates that people can seek to use WL (or a media outlet) to promote their agenda by using this model. The appeal is of course that people will believe it if it's leaked. In this case, it was found to be a sham. Thank goodness.

A
R
T
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:23 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Quote:
On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[121] The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",[122] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[123] According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.


Hard to believe that Obama received the Nobel price for peace, isn't it?


Why?

The prize is to be awarded

"...to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I think it was ridiculous to award Obama the prize in the first place, but how does any direction by Obama to ask other nations to consider prosecuting Assange contradict the criteria established to be awarded it?

CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:23 pm
@failures art,
That's true of course, it was intended as a joke (in response to Barbara).

You have to admit though, failure art, that the best thing in all this is not
Wikileas, it's to see the government struggling to shut the internet down
in order to protect itself from us, and it's not happening.
----

Aside from Wikileaks, this is an open question: What limits does the media have? If our government declares information are top secret and/or illegally gained, should they not be allowed to publish it?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:37 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
what line would have to be crossed for you to consider that possibility?

I doubt any "line" would have been crossed, ehBeth.
It is simply that I had nothing in particular that I wanted to say about what Art was so insistent I should comment on. Usually I post a comment when I do have something I want to add to a discussion. Isn't that what most of us do?

Besides, it is still not clear clear to me why it was so crucial that that particular discussion be had, anyway.
If Art believes that "solutions" based on some sort of (to me ) unclear "middle ground" (if that's what he meant?) are important issues, he's had every chance to introduce that to this discussion. He still can. Then I, or anyone else, can respond to them, if we want to. Surely that is not an unreasonable expectation?

And apart from that, yes, I was feeling somewhat "badgered", or pressured. And frankly, I have had enough of that.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Obama's and his government officials involvement and actions towards WL and Assagne have contributed to widening the gap between nations.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 02:37:47