Assange says leaks suck.

Both sides of whose mouth???

How do you manage to post a link to an article that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether or not Assange receives a salary and claim that he receives nothing??

It actually may even say the opposite:

Quoted from ignorant's link said: “At year end [Wau Holland] will give a breakdown of how they have reimbursed our costs and the staff salaries of people who are getting paid,” Hrafnsson said. It’s the first indication that some WikiLeaks staffers have been receiving salary payments for their work.

The other article you linked sort of references it:

Up to this point, not even Assange receives a salary. He lives off his savings, has no permanent residence and frequently sleeps with friends during his perpetual travels…

"Up to this point". There was a time that the same could be said about Mark Zuckerberg (another famous world class hacker). Current net worth $6.9 BILLION

Keep on this path, iggy, and I might have to take back my comment about how smart you are!

zuckerburg is not a hacker in the least...

And Zuckerburg fortune was given to him by speculators.. But his business model is flawed. He has a whole bunch of your data, but no current way to sell it and no ads on facebook.

As to Jensenman speaking out of both sides of his mouth.. He said.. (me paraphrasing) about assange not being honorable because he was releasing stuff against the US and he wasn't a US citizen.. (though he is releasing things from everywhere). So then I said.. What about the americans currently working inside China to further christianity? He said it is different.. I don't see it as such and thing Jensenman is setting a double standard based upon some predisposition against Assange....

So my next questions are about the folks inside Belarus to report upon their countries elections.. (no doubt that stuff is considered to be secrets by the current nutty regime there..) Are they not honorable? Why are they different than Assange? They get info from somwhere and then publish it.. Stuff that the folks inside Belarus would like to keep quite.. Or the Stuff people publish about abuses against Christians inside China.. I'm sure the Chinese consider it to be confidential and secret.. OR are we pecking at a complete US vs. Them double standard..

(sorry for poor grammar and sentence construction.. 2 year old is crawling on me.)

No ads on Facebook? What are you talking about?

FB has a 23.1% market share of ALL display ads on the entire internet!

Are you saying that Zberg did not hack the email accounts of Harvard's Crimson and other databases?

This stuff doesn't help your credibility.

ya, on the fb ads. why do they think I want to date women as old as me, I mean really!

Assange now confesses his fear of being killed before trial (ala Jack Ruby style) if he's extradited to the US. Ummm, Ruby died of lung cancer after he was convicted of murdering LHO............ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8223399/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fears-death-in-a-US-jail.html

For the record, I don't think Assange is guilty of espionage or of having a poor journalistic ethic. I do, however, think he is guilty as a self-serving, self-adulated, self-appointed windmill-assaulter who reveals poorly secured US documents; Assange is a Bob Costas with an Australian accent.

If he's afraid of the US justice system, he's way too much an effing coward to expose the goods on international banking and the Russians. Whatever he deserves, I hope he gets it.

SVreX wrote: No ads on Facebook? What are you talking about? FB has a 23.1% market share of ALL display ads on the entire internet! Are you saying that Zberg did not hack the email accounts of Harvard's Crimson and other databases? This stuff doesn't help your credibility.

Sorry man.. Last time I had a FB account it was 3-4 years ago.

Zuckerberg is no hacker.

But what is funny, is that you chose to pick that bit out of my post and attack me about some random tangent... But.. Like I asserted before. Their business strategy is nonexistant and constantly changing.. It also depends on people still wanting to utlize their services.. There are competitors out there starting right now that have better privacy.. oh god I'm off on a tangent..

Yes, you are on a tangent.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. What I am getting is that you are suggesting that: 1) Hackers are somehow superior (mentally and ethically) and Zuckerberg doesn't live up to it, 2) Assange is not only superior by nature of the fact that he is a true hacker, but has a better business plan, and 3) That his "better" business plan somehow includes that he will not personally benefit from it financially in any way, even though, 4) He will earn the respect of his fellow superior hackers who will, of course, see to it that he never has any monetary gain from it whatsoever. Oh, and 5) We can entrust hackers with the long term protection of our freedoms because, as everyone knows, their superior ethical concerns and metal prowess will always keep all of our interests at the forefront because they are not self-serving and would never harm us or be looking out for their own self interests.

Frankly, it sounds like hogwash to me.

I thought the wank-fest that was hacker worship died in this decade>>>> http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/the-dream-of-the-90s-is-alive-in-portland

Datsun1500 wrote: As someone said, follow the money. Assange now has a book deal.... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/27/publisher-confirms-julian-assange-book-deal/?test=latestnews

Good.. and probably most of the viewers from Fox news will purchase it, read it, then talk about how disgusting the man is... All while funding his legal defense..
HA!

nutherjrfan wrote: I thought the wank-fest that was hacker worship died in this decade>>>> http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/the-dream-of-the-90s-is-alive-in-portland

I used to wait for the next issue of Phrack to be available...

SVreX wrote: Yes, you are on a tangent. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. What I am getting is that you are suggesting that: 1) Hackers are somehow superior (mentally and ethically) and Zuckerberg doesn't live up to it, 2) Assange is not only superior by nature of the fact that he is a true hacker, but has a better business plan, and 3) That his "better" business plan somehow includes that he will not personally benefit from it financially in any way, even though, 4) He will earn the respect of his fellow superior hackers who will, of course, see to it that he never has any monetary gain from it whatsoever. Oh, and 5) We can entrust hackers with the long term protection of our freedoms because, as everyone knows, their superior ethical concerns and metal prowess will always keep all of our interests at the forefront because they are not self-serving and would never harm us or be looking out for their own self interests. Frankly, it sounds like hogwash to me.

no.. Just that zuckerburg is noone to look up to and his business better do something in the next few years or they'll fall into the Myspace trap...

About assange.. My main point is this... The man is no different than the NYTimes or LATimes or ABC news.. He merely is the new woodward and bernstein. He never actually stole anything just published it like a journalist.

With a personal net worth of $6.9 billion, who cares if the whole thing goes south?

He doesn't have anything left to prove. He's already proved it.

SVreX wrote: With a personal net worth of $6.9 billion, who cares if the whole thing goes south? He doesn't have anything left to prove. He's already proved it.

I edited my post to keep it on topic.

zuckerburg is more of an interesting case study.. He got money from investors because he might have a saleable product some time in the future, but has really failed to do that so far.. And any attempt at developing a saleable product infuriates his user base. Very interesting.

Ignorant wrote: He merely is the new woodward and bernstein. He never actually stole anything just published it like a journalist.

Dude, nobody's disagreeing with you.

But the proof of criminal activity is not yet determined, and I WILL NOT credit him with rising to the status of Woodward and Bernstein until that is determined.

You are defending him vigorously with no proof. There IS a possibility you are mistaken.

All I'm saying is I'm prepared to wait and see.

There is another huge difference. W&B reported on a corrupt individual and his administration, which was directly under his orders, so it all came back to him. They utilized a journalistic ethical approach that was agreed upon by their peers, which included checks and balances to protect innocent individuals.

Assange is attacking an entire government, based on his presuppositions that the whole thing is corrupt, and he doesn't apply his assertions equally to other governments. There are a lot of innocents potentially in the line of fire. He refuses to accept ethical self-limitations which are standard by his journalistic peers. It's important to utilize caution before pushing the button based on assumptions when there is so much at stake.

The mirror sites are a perfect example. How will WL effectively pull or retract an article or statement if it is found to be in error after the damage is done?

If he's right, I'll back him. So far, it is not proven. I will wait.

SVreX wrote: Assange is attacking an entire government, based on his presuppositions that the whole thing is corrupt, and he doesn't apply his assertions equally to other governments. There are a lot of innocents potentially in the line of fire. He refuses to accept ethical self-limitations which are standard by his journalistic peers. It's important to utilize caution before pushing the button based on assumptions when there is so much at stake. The mirror sites are a perfect example. How will WL effectively pull or retract an article or statement if it is found to be in error after the damage is done?

Just a few points.. I don't entirely disagree with you.

1. I don't see Assange as attacking a government he sees as being corrupt. He merely releases the information he recieves. I think it is false to believe that the man is specifically targeting the US government. I think thats just the information he has at his disposal. It also brings in the donations. If you do some reading about wikileaks in the past, before they got all of this info from Bradley Manning, the webpage was shut down numerous times due to funding issues. There were other times the made some headlines, but nothing really interesting. I guess he's just giving people what sells.

2. Your point about retracting a statement or article is a huge issue with any data released to the web. I remember a while ago when HALO2 was about to be released for the Xbox and someone smuggled a copy out and it made its way to the pirate bay.... Gates went nuts. He had the pirate bay shut down, but the damage was done and HALO2 spread all over the place like wildfire. Once that stuff is out, Its out. Like it or love it, It's the way the internet works.

Ignorant wrote: zuckerburg is not a hacker in the least... And Zuckerburg fortune was given to him by speculators.. But his business model is flawed. He has a whole bunch of your data, but no current way to sell it and no ads on facebook. As to Jensenman speaking out of both sides of his mouth.. He said.. (me paraphrasing) about assange not being honorable because he was releasing stuff against the US and he wasn't a US citizen.. (though he is releasing things from everywhere). So then I said.. What about the americans currently working inside China to further christianity? He said it is different.. I don't see it as such and thing Jensenman is setting a double standard based upon some predisposition against Assange.... So my next questions are about the folks inside Belarus to report upon their countries elections.. (no doubt that stuff is considered to be secrets by the current nutty regime there..) Are they not honorable? Why are they different than Assange? They get info from somwhere and then publish it.. Stuff that the folks inside Belarus would like to keep quite.. Or the Stuff people publish about abuses against Christians inside China.. I'm sure the Chinese consider it to be confidential and secret.. OR are we pecking at a complete US vs. Them double standard.. (sorry for poor grammar and sentence construction.. 2 year old is crawling on me.)

So you consider the US and Belarus to be on the same level? Please.

Go back and read my original post. I consider Assange to be dishonorable due to 1) his willingness to release information even if it really could hurt or kill some one (check into his 'nuclear option' threat) and 2) him pitching what my momma calls a 'hissy fit' because the Guardian released information concerning the Swedish sex charges. But that should have been OK; the Guardian offered to let him review the information before it was released.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Right?

Then there are the people who put their lives on the line every day, trying to make sense out of this idiotic ball of mud. Sometimes, in order to do that job, it may be necessary to pass on information which is probably best not released to the general public real quickly. So those people do that in the best manner they can, imperfect though it may be. There are idiots among them, just like in any profession and then there are honest mistakes. But on the average, they try hard and the majority are probably honest hard workers.

Or in your opinion are the only honorable people left those who hack and steal?

Jensenman wrote: Or in your opinion are the only honorable people left those who hack and steal?

interesting argument line you have chosen. But it all hinges on this last sentence.. You believe that he has stolen something and did it himself.. I believe the guy received a bunch of info and published it like a journalist.

very interesting.

By definition, hacking IS stealing.

Wikipedia said (regardless of how accurate they are): In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers and computer networks, either for profit or motivated by the challenge.

Breaking into something without authorization IS a crime, even if you just do it for fun. They are not heros. Talented yes. Heros no.

SVreX wrote: By definition, hacking IS stealing.

Wikipedia said (regardless of how accurate they are): In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers and computer networks, either for profit or motivated by the challenge.

Breaking into something without authorization IS a crime, even if you just do it for fun. They are not heros. Talented yes. Heros no.

what did HE hack?

TimesOnline.com said: Assange was one of six Melbourne teenagers arrested by police; although never implicated in the Nasa attack, he was charged with more than 30 counts of computer crime. Admitting 24 of them, he was placed on a “good behaviour bond” and ordered to pay A$2,100 (about £1,275 at today’s rates).

But you already knew that.

SVreX wrote:

TimesOnline.com said: Assange was one of six Melbourne teenagers arrested by police; although never implicated in the Nasa attack, he was charged with more than 30 counts of computer crime. Admitting 24 of them, he was placed on a “good behaviour bond” and ordered to pay A$2,100 (about £1,275 at today’s rates).

But you already knew that.

And we've all done stuff in our youth ... blah blah...

What did he hack as part of this wikileaks bit? What did he actually steal?

You're changing the subject.

No one said he hacked anything in connection with WL. We are simply asking why you are elevating hackers to god-like status.

You gonna answer J-man's question about honorable people?

The U.S. gov't hasn't respected a private citizen's privacy since the Patriot Act was passed. Why should the U.S. be entitled to cover up it's mistakes while you and I can't make a private phone call? A bit hypocritical in my views.

Assange is doing the right thing. Like the gov't tells you at the airport, "If you have nothing to hide then why are you worried about the TSA digging in your luggage and feeling your nuts?" Truth is, while having nothing to hide, you still need privacy. Maybe if the U.S. didn't act in reprehensible ways or violate their citizen's privacy we could have a very different discussion.

I find it hilarious that the U.S. is crying foul. This stuff should be knowledge to all citizen's. What's the worst you've heard from these leaks? The U.S. killed civilians? We all know that's going on. That the ambassador corps had crap things to say about other world leaders? Crackah please! We all knew that too. The gov't is doing this stuff in our name with our tax dollars. Shouldn't we know about it? We're all adults. We need information to make an informed decision about where our country is headed and how it's acting.

Also, Assange didn't steal a thing. Stealing has never been proven and most likely will never be. He obtained the info and published it like the NY Times or Washington Post. He also offered info to major media outlets for screening. He also offered to let the U.S. Military review the info before publishing. They refused.

The world is as it is now. Like the record companies, you can cry and scream all you want but progress is here. The kids want mp3's! You can sue people all you want but it won't stop progress. It's now. The affect on gov't is that information that could easily be kept secret in the past will now be common knowledge. That is a good thing.

I know some, if not most, disagree with me. I love that. I respect all of your opinions. After all, if we all agreed this place would get boring real fast. What do you think?

Xceler8x wrote: The U.S. gov't hasn't respected a private citizen's privacy since the Patriot Act was passed. What do you think?

I think the reference to the Patriot Act is a cheap shot!

If you think a citizens's privacy was never violated prior to 2001, I have a Nigerian uncle who wishes to assist you in recovering the wealth amassed by ...............