Assange says leaks suck.

mapper wrote: And I'm glad we have you and Assange to determine what those limits should be.

Or.. Maybe we need to continualy test those limits to understand that they are appropriately set..

But.. If you're not interested in questioning the government.. It's ok. Don't worry.. Everything is fine. We shouldn't question people in authority positions because they're smarter than us and know what is best for all.. YAY!

Datsun1500 hit the nail right on the head: unlike the Chinese and Tibetian dissidents, he's not even going after his own government. He's just a hypocrite looking to make a buck.

It just cracks me up that he sees no problem with leaking embarrassing information concerning the US government then squeals like a stuck pig when his 'personal' information concerning breaking Swedish law is concerned. Over here in the Great Satan, that is considered public information and is available to anyone with $2-3 and the time to go to the local government office. Believe me, that's the way it works. I had to do exactly that two or three times this year.

As I said in another thread, if you can let someone come to your door and say 'I have all this dirt on you and I plan to release it', you'd kick him square in the balls. Until you can say this, you are in the exact same position as the US government.

Ignorant wrote:

mapper wrote: And I'm glad we have you and Assange to determine what those limits should be.

Or.. Maybe we need to continualy test those limits to understand that they are appropriately set.. But.. If you're not interested in questioning the government.. It's ok. Don't worry.. Everything is fine. We shouldn't question people in authority positions because they're smarter than us and know what is best for all.. YAY!

I wasn't aware that Assange was a U.S. citizen and had a voice in how our country is run.

Uncovering civilian deaths that the government tried to cover up is good. Airing information that does not help anyone but will just make it hard for our diplomats or armed forces to do their job is just being a petty little douche.

Jensenman wrote: Datsun1500 hit the nail right on the head: unlike the Chinese and Tibetian dissidents, he's not even going after his own government. He's just a hypocrite looking to make a buck.

What about Americans working in China to expose the abuse and oppression of Christians in that country? Are they shiny happy person D-Bags like Assange?

Also I fail to see where he is making money off of this whole thing?

mapper wrote: Uncovering civilian deaths that the government tried to cover up is good. Airing information that does not help anyone but will just make it hard for our diplomats or armed forces to do their job is just being a petty little douche.

Does not help anyone? Man.. You sure lay the Hyperbole one thick..

I love it like a gay guy loves chest waxes.

Ignorant wrote: Also I fail to see where he is making money off of this whole thing?

Come on! You are significantly smarter than that!

Shim wrote: yay.. Hyperbole.. Of course there are limits.. And of course there should be privacy limits. Duh... And at what point do we get to the "wag the dog" stage with our government..

Hyperbole is exaggeration, that is not hyperbole, it is equivalency, information explicitly marked as confidential, released/leaked to the general public. One situation you agree with, one you don't, but the circumstances are exactly the same.

Confidentiality, whether personal, corporate or diplomatic, exists to prohibit the worst, not to inhibit the best. The best may be what you like which is exposing tyranny, no one disagress with that end. But the worst is exposing information which should not be exposed because as you say there should be limits, and there the ends do not justify the means.

Those limits cannot be determined AFTER information is leaked. Either information is or it is not treated as confidential once is it transmitted. That is why there is spousal privelige and the 5th amendment in this land of tyranny and hypcrosy.

This is the same as the Price is Right, choose your door before you know the contents, is explicitly marked confidential information confidential, or is it not?

SVreX wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Also I fail to see where he is making money off of this whole thing?

Come on! You are significantly smarter than that!

I'll tell you something. If he was making tons of money off of this... He would have received no support from the Hackers who helped him. If there is one thing that Hackers hate, it is people profiting from information. I know that is tough for most people to fathom, due to the rampant identity theft going around. However.. It is.. The Identity theft guys generally are two bit folks.

grpb wrote:

Shim wrote: yay.. Hyperbole.. Of course there are limits.. And of course there should be privacy limits. Duh... And at what point do we get to the "wag the dog" stage with our government..

Hyperbole is exaggeration, that is not hyperbole, it is equivalency, information explicitly marked as confidential, released/leaked to the general public. One situation you agree with, one you don't, but the circumstances are exactly the same.

Only if you equate both types of info to be the same. One I see as having value and exposing things that needlessly made confidential.. Vs. The other having little to no value. Medical information while possibly embarrassing is effectively worthless...

grpb wrote: Confidentiality, whether personal, corporate or diplomatic, exists to prohibit the worst, not to inhibit the best. The best may be what you like which is exposing tyranny, no one disagress with that end. But the worst is exposing information which should not be exposed because as you say there should be limits, and there the ends do not justify the means. Those limits cannot be determined AFTER information is leaked. Either information is or it is not treated as confidential once is it transmitted. That is why there is spousal privelige and the 5th amendment in this land of tyranny and hypcrosy. This is the same as the Price is Right, choose your door before you know the contents, is explicitly marked confidential information confidential, or is it not?

But the issue is who determines these things are confidential.. Why.. and why not.. Those are the main things I have problems with... Read the leaks, then determine for yourself if you believe that this is information that should be kept secret..

For Example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-mcdonalds-us-el-salvador

Ignorant wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Also I fail to see where he is making money off of this whole thing?

Come on! You are significantly smarter than that!

I'll tell you something. If he was making tons of money off of this... He would have received no support from the Hackers who helped him. If there is one thing that Hackers hate, it is people profiting from information. I know that is tough for most people to fathom, due to the rampant identity theft going around. However.. It is.. The Identity theft guys generally are two bit folks.

There's more than one way to make a buck...

Corporate execs who draw no salary but make a killing off their stock options...

Entrepreneurs who invest in a venture for years making nothing while building the business...

Presidents whose salary is quite small considering the office, but parlay the position into ultra lucrative speaking engagement contracts or multimillion dollar book deals...

People who voluntary sit on advisory boards knowing the financial impact of brokering in power and knowledge...

Even hackers who hone their skills and credibility doing "altruistic" efforts with the full knowledge that what they are doing can easily be traded for huge gains in salaried or partnered positions in the tech, security, or defense industries.

If hackers (or anyone) think there is no way for Julian Assange to make money off this, they are not very smart.

Besides... what kind of proof are you offering? Assange doesn't make any money because hackers would sniff him out?? So, the check and balance is that one hacker would surely sniff out another? What are they, gods of honesty and trust? I'm sure most lead auditors would really appreciated the effectiveness of a system like that.

Like I said, you are smarter than that.

SVreX wrote: Like I said, you are smarter than that.

If it comes out that this guy is actually trying to make money and further himself off of this.... Wikileaks will be down in less than 30 seconds. I

Re the comment that medical info is worthless: It can cause you to not be hired, lose insurance coverage, be a social pariah etc. If those things are worthless, I would have to disagree. How about the case where the info is incorrect, but is given credibilty just bcause it purports to be accurate? I fail to see the positive aspects of leaking classified info. As has previously been pointed out, there are compelling reasons to protect some information. Indiscrimate dissemination of this info is reckless and irresponsible.

Reckless and irresponsible, kinda like riding without a helmet, some places that is against the law.

TRoglodyte wrote: Reckless and irresponsible, kinda like riding without a helmet, some places that is against the law.

Most who shout Reckless and irresponsible haven't read any of the leaks.

Sorry.

Julian Assange:

leaks are good....EXCEPT when they are about me.

Sorry, this guy is attempting to unveil the hypocracy of governments around the world, but when he is snared by one or two.....it becomes a case of do as I say, NOT as I do.

No sympathy here.

Ignorant wrote:

mapper wrote: Uncovering civilian deaths that the government tried to cover up is good. Airing information that does not help anyone but will just make it hard for our diplomats or armed forces to do their job is just being a petty little douche.

Does not help anyone? Man.. You sure lay the Hyperbole one thick.. I love it like a gay guy loves chest waxes.

Your increasingly childish responses make me smile.

mapper wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

mapper wrote: Uncovering civilian deaths that the government tried to cover up is good. Airing information that does not help anyone but will just make it hard for our diplomats or armed forces to do their job is just being a petty little douche.

Does not help anyone? Man.. You sure lay the Hyperbole one thick.. I love it like a gay guy loves chest waxes.

Your increasingly childish responses make me smile.

I'm glad.. you're smug responses remind me of myself..

Have you read any of the documents? Seems like everyone wants to throw stones, but noone wants to read them or understand the content.

Sorry you don't see Assange as just another journalist. I still don't understand why we vilify him but do not vilify the other media outlets that are publishing the same material..

man, do you at least have a magazine subscription? try reading it and kick back from the politics for once, and I think if I hear the word hyperbole one more time, I'm gonna puke.

Ignorant wrote: Sorry you don't see Assange as just another journalist. I still don't understand why we vilify him but do not vilify the other media outlets that are publishing the same material..

I don't really have a problem with most of what he has released, It's what he might release that I have a problem with. A journalist will weigh the impact of what they release. An example would be reporting the rape but not the rape victim's name. I don't think Assange thinks like that. Sure he has not released the victim's name so far but if we really piss him off he will just to "stick it to us". I may be wrong but I don't think so.

This is a thought provoking take on the whole thing:

http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/

Brett_Murphy wrote: This is a thought provoking take on the whole thing: http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/

Intersting, I was going to post this as well. I picked it up from the twitter account of Jacob Applebaum, known Wikileaks supporter.

It's not about the content. It's about the lack of journalistic ethics and professional peer review, and the potential for abuse.

The content can change in a millisecond without the ethical guidelines.

The only rule (self imposed or otherwise) he seems willing to play by is, "All information should be available". Until his is.

Ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Datsun1500 hit the nail right on the head: unlike the Chinese and Tibetian dissidents, he's not even going after his own government. He's just a hypocrite looking to make a buck.

What about Americans working in China to expose the abuse and oppression of Christians in that country? Are they shiny happy person D-Bags like Assange? Also I fail to see where he is making money off of this whole thing?

Seems you missed the whole bit about PayPal, Visa and Mastercard cutting off Wikileaks funding and all the hackers attacked their computers. The more publicity he gets the more money comes in, but now it's only through a few limited avenues. If you think for one second he isn't sucking those accounts dry for his own personal gain, then you truly are 'ignorant'. Like Dr Hess always says, 'follow the money'.

The Chinese have a tradition of silencing dissidents by killing or imprisoning them. I can't believe you are seriously comparing those people to Assange.

grpb wrote: This is the same as the Price is Right, choose your door before you know the contents, is explicitly marked confidential information confidential, or is it not?

I think you mean Let's Make a Deal. Monte Hall would give some goofballs in costume a choice of three doors or sometimes what Jay had in the box.

Jensenman wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Datsun1500 hit the nail right on the head: unlike the Chinese and Tibetian dissidents, he's not even going after his own government. He's just a hypocrite looking to make a buck.

The Chinese have a tradition of silencing dissidents by killing or imprisoning them. I can't believe you are seriously comparing those people to Assange.

you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth...

what about americans on Belarus reporting on the election craziness there? are they, like assange, not honorable?

The money thing is a silly argument. He's getting donations and living in a donated house. But if you want to follow the money.. Michael Moore gave him $20K for bail. You know Michael Moore, he's 100% interested in financing another mans extravagant lifestyle. You're nuts.. He's not in control of the "anonymous" group... If anything you are showing a distinct lack of understanding of internet/hacker culture. and to be fair I think this is most of the worlds problem right now. The way we get information, how we use it, who uses it.. Its all changed and noone wants to admit it.

Assange dosen't even get a salary nor does anyone who works for him.. And his organization has had to shut down in the past due to a lack of funds..

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007485

Come on man. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-salaries/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

Last year they only brought in $800k.. Sorry but thats not that great of a sum.

So.. Show me the information you have that says he is making a ton of profit on this? Prove me wrong. Sure they have cash reserves now. but they'll need to start paying some of their staff and they'll need plenty in the future for legal defense.