Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Brian · 03-12-2010 11:50PM

The documents are all vetted before release. Also, the time delay between acquisition and publishing caused by verification and perusal is generally long enough to negate any great impact on current events. It's not quite the same as releasing real-time logs of discussions between secretive parties.

AskMyChocolate · 04-12-2010 12:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Guh?

*decrypts*

\ gives boneyarsebogman a hug

Manic Moran · 04-12-2010 03:37AM

Jaafa wrote: »

What peace deal?

The one currently being negotiated in secret. Don't believe me? Chances arethat's what they would have said in 1978

KyussBishop · 04-12-2010 04:35AM

Manic Moran wrote:

The Attorney General of the United States would beg to disagree. I think he probably has better legal qualifications than most of us on here.

Instead of an appeal to authority, explain how it is illegal. WikiLeaks are not under jurisdiction of US law.
Note that I am talking about WikiLeaks and not Bradley Manning.

Manic Moran wrote:

Here's what I don't get about that concept.

Wikileaks is priding itself on making public 'game-changing' or otherwise 'important' pieces of information. If this insurance file is so astonishing that it works as 'insurance', then why haven't they released it as part of their openness campaign? Do they not care enough about their goal to do so?

It's probably a massive dump of yet-to-be-redacted files, which will be released over time; their releases of the months since the creation of the insurance file are probably in the insurance file.
That is the insurance; that what they are working on will still get out even if the organization faces unrecoverable attacks.

Also, are you really criticizing them on not being open enough (to a purist/anarchic degree) by not giving the document password, when also previously accusing them of not being careful enough redacting documents?
It's a fairly dishonest/moot argument when it's plainly obvious how it would conflict with protecting identities in the documents.

You're framing of the file as being a hostage situation, and all the speculation involved, is a pretty big straw man argument altogether.

Mark200 wrote:

Well if anything I'd say they could be done for encouraging Brad Manning and any other sources they had who broke the law, even if the actual publishing is not illegal.

WikiLeaks never directly encourage someone to leak documents as that is illegal in many countries; people go to WikiLeaks, not the other way around, and the system is setup such that nobody knows who the person uploading documents is, to keep sources confidential.

Manic Moran wrote:

[edit. Whistle blower protection will also be more likely if the blow is for illegal activity. What is illegal about saying that the italian pm parties a lot which requires protection for the leak?

Spying on top UN officials is illegal under international law, and the US has signed up to that law.
You can see it for yourself, articles 27 and 30 of the Vienna Treaty:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

While the threat to international diplomacy, in the form of diplomats needing to be open and frank in their assessment, is a real one, the potential damage is offset by the fact that many of these documents are in the public interest.
Politicians have already lost their jobs over some of the revelations so far, and other serious scandals have been uncovered; this is unquestionably in the public interest.

When it comes to the remaining cables, it is up to WikiLeaks and the media organizations it's cooperating with, to adequately determine what should and should not be released.
Now that the data is out (emphasis on this condition), this is something which should not be left up to a government agency, as they are too subject to political interference, and can not be trusted to not censor information in the public interest.

Also, Assange and Manning aren't petty enough to just "want[] to get their names on the news"; they have both taken serious risks, with Assange having to stay in hiding under fear of death threats, and with Manning potentially spending most of the remainder of his life in prison.

They are extremely brave (primarily in Assanges case) and principled people for what they have done and risked, as much so (but with different risks) as any of the soldiers you know or have met.

Personally, the strength of principle shown by these people is far more impressive to me than any example of bravery on a battlefield could be.

04-12-2010 11:28AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

*decrypts*

\ gives boneyarsebogman a hug

All threads should involve me getting a hug at some point.

04-12-2010 11:40AM

My opinion?

Wikileaks will kill the internet.

Wikileaks will kill freedom.

Wikileaks was a push too far, too hard. The powers that be now have something to point to and yell "WE MUST PREVENT THIS!" when they remove or gut the internet and net neutrality.

Mark200 · 04-12-2010 12:32PM

Baza210 wrote: »

The documents are all vetted before release. Also, the time delay between acquisition and publishing caused by verification and perusal is generally long enough to negate any great impact on current events. It's not quite the same as releasing real-time logs of discussions between secretive parties.

Peace talks, or other serious diplomatic talks, usually take place over a long time. Some documents that wikileaks are releasing are from this year.

To say that they're*'vetted' is a bit mis-leading. Do you really think that wikileaks would hold back the release of anything just because it relates to current activities? Not at all.

In fact Assange was directly asked yesterday why wikileaks should not be held responsible for any future lack of trust in talks, and he couldn't answer it. All he said was:

"If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention."

A ridiculous dodge of a serious question that he simply could not answer.

Anyway, it looks like the final nails may be going in the wikileaks coffin.... can't really say I'll miss the hypocrites too much:

The online payments processor, PayPal, says it has cut access for donations to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

PayPal said its payment service cannot be used for activities "that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity".

Wikileaks' latest releases - of US diplomatic cables - has caused considerable embarrassment to the US and its allies, correspondents say.

It has been forced to change its web address after sustained cyber attacks.

In a statement, US-based PayPal said donations could no longer be made to Wikileaks because of "a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy"

Earlier, the company providing Wikileaks with its domain name, EveryDNS.net, cut off service because the domain wikileaks.org had become the target of "multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917891

Biggins · 04-12-2010 01:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

My opinion?

Wikileaks will kill the internet.
Wikileaks will kill freedom.
Wikileaks was a push too far, too hard. The powers that be now have something to point to and yell "WE MUST PREVENT THIS!" when they remove or gut the internet and net neutrality.

I disagree.

The internet has been used for many nefarious means by a many number of organisations (terrorist related) and by criminal organisations for a lot of years. Decades even.
Part of their activities has been passing encoded messages, creation of their genuine websites for promotion, PR and trying to gain members, false ones for subversions means, the passing and planning of operations across private forums, the supplying of files and data besides the joint efforts for the creation of viruses, etc - did you know at one stage the biggest creators of IT viruses was Yassa Arrafat's PLO organisation that had a team dedicated to creating a a number of trogens/viruses that would hopefully they thought, successfully be attacking the American banking system and economic stock markets - ...and on and on...

...So the assumption that just Wikileaks will be the death of the internet or kill its net neutrality, is something I disagree with.
The Americans in fact (along with multi-national companies who only see it now as a possible two tier net system in the future for profit) having been trying for many, many years now to stem and make a difference to the way the net has operated. They have been trying long before Wikileaks became the voice it is, to kill off net neutrality for a long time by a number of means.
The "knocks" to the net, the calls for change to the net system, the companies pushing for ending net neutrality, has been going on for decades now. Its nothing new.
And if a bit of research is done, you would find this out for oneself.

Wikileaks is not perfect - but it maybe one of the last few large voices that can be heard loud enough by the world, to make a difference.
...That is before the American political system and multi-national companies continue to attempt kill it (or similar) off for ever!

As regards Paypal in America stopping their donation system, it will make things tough for Wikileaks - but as Wikileaks has shown, their methods of fund-raising is not limited to just one service and you can be sure they will come up with an alternative donation service, similar in like to Paypal. Paypal are not the only guys on the block.

Have a look at: http://213.251.145.96/support.html

Jaafa · 04-12-2010 01:43PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The one currently being negotiated in secret. Don't believe me? Chances arethat's what they would have said in 1978

I think what was achieved in 1978 was as far as they are going to get. The 'peace deal/talks' in their current form ended a long time ago. I see no room for negotiations between the 2 party's secret or not.

Anyway this strays a bit off topic for this thread.....

Jaafa · 05-12-2010 12:11AM

PayPal has restricted Wikileaks account with them. Has no one any self respect anymore?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024649-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Overheal · 05-12-2010 12:25AM

Heres what bothers me, is that the information thus far isn't terribly damning. However, the response from the US Government to the leaks is seemingly disproportional. Read: Overkill. Whats that adage about Nothing to Hide that they use when they want to take a body scan of my penis?

Military Intimidates Soldiers away from reading Wikileaks

Library of Congress bans Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law:

[U.S. forces in Iraq have] not blocked any news websites from being read. Because of the Wikileaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page NIPRNet computers go to first. This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website.

ie. "Read that, and you're committing treason" Or some such.

Now I've elevated my concern about this situation to mild.

Biggins · 05-12-2010 02:07AM

Sunday Times article for those interested - YES, IT IS LONG AND DETAILED!

Wiki's world

The leaking of US embassy cables threatened a diplomatic meltdown. But what do the acerbic portraits of nations and leaders really tell us?

Manic Moran · 05-12-2010 02:35AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Instead of an appeal to authority, explain how it is illegal. WikiLeaks are not under jurisdiction of US law.
Note that I am talking about WikiLeaks and not Bradley Manning.

I would submit that the appropriate laws are the exact same ones which cover all other forms of intellectual property internationally. The Berne Convention of 1886 might be a startpoint. Axl Rose may have recorded his album under US law, copyrighted it under US Law, but the unauthorised duplication and release in China is still actionable and illegal.

It's probably a massive dump of yet-to-be-redacted files, which will be released over time; their releases of the months since the creation of the insurance file are probably in the insurance file.
That is the insurance; that what they are working on will still get out even if the organization faces unrecoverable attacks.

I highlight the relevant bit. Wikileaks is claiming to be acting responsibly by not revealing information which is harmful to third parties is and redacting accordingly. Yet if your hypothesis is correct, their last act as they go down is the complete abandonment of that principle, if they go down, damnit, so does everybody else. Do you fail to see the irony in this situation?

Also, are you really criticizing them on not being open enough (to a purist/anarchic degree) by not giving the document password, when also previously accusing them of not being careful enough redacting documents?

Nope. I'm pointing out that so far nobody has managed to give a reasonable explanation of why the existance of the insurance file with the claim that the password will be released is not in contravention of Wikileaks' own stated goals and principles.

Spying on top UN officials is illegal under international law, and the US has signed up to that law.
You can see it for yourself, articles 27 and 30 of the Vienna Treaty:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

I'm sure it is. And I would submit that whislteblower protection might well apply to that cable with the evidence thereof. However, that was no scalpel that Wikileaks released, they released far more confidential information than was required to support any claims of unlawful activity.

NTM

Latchy · 05-12-2010 02:54AM

That Julian Assange must be one the loneliest man in the world right now ,if the people at the very top in high office see you as their enemy there's isin't much down for you .

Johro · 05-12-2010 04:50PM

Biggins wrote: »

As regards Paypal in America stopping their donation system, it will make things tough for Wikileaks - but as Wikileaks has shown, their methods of fund-raising is not limited to just one service and you can be sure they will come up with an alternative donation service, similar in like to Paypal. Paypal are not the only guys on the block.

True. I donated to Wikileaks last year, think I used Paypal then, but if Paypal's withdrawn it won't stop me from using my card. Or sending a cheque through the post, if it came to that.
Shame on Paypal for bowing to political pressure, if you believe the arguments against Wikileaks, you should also see the arguments for.

Johro · 05-12-2010 05:05PM

FireShot capture #029 wwwthesundaytimescoukst.png

Pretty much what it all amounts too alright.

ardinn · 05-12-2010 06:27PM

I just googled "Activate Reston 5" Theres tyres screeching outside my house now!!! I think I should activate the magnet and head to the bunker!!

SamHarris · 05-12-2010 07:04PM

Biggins wrote: »

Sunday Times article for those intetested - YES, IT IS LONG AND DETAILED!

Wiki's world

The leaking of US embassy cables threatened a diplomatic meltdown. But what do the acerbic portraits of nations and leaders really tell us?

Thanks for that, good analysis. I think Gates really summed it all up by the end.

So few people can have a decent argument about the pros and cons, they often fall into either the facile argument that governments should always be transparent, completly and continually. Or that Wikileaks is some sort of anti-American anarchist group that MUST BE DESTROYED. Although I do think Assange himself has an anti-US bias, there has been splintering from the group itself on this subject.

SamHarris · 05-12-2010 07:10PM

Johro wrote: »

True. I donated to Wikileaks last year, think I used Paypal then, but if Paypal's withdrawn it won't stop me from using my card. Or sending a cheque through the post, if it came to that.
Shame on Paypal for bowing to political pressure, if you believe the arguments against Wikileaks, you should also see the arguments for.

Im reasonably sure both Amazon and Paypal made business rather than ethical descisions here; the risk of a backlash from the American public is high right now, and being so obviously tied to wikileaks really does nothing for them, and could be damaging. To give you an idea of the mood in the US about this particular batch of leaks, even Jon Stewart ripped into them.

Amalgam · 06-12-2010 12:49AM

Assange is being 4Chan'd to the top of Time's Person of the Year at the moment. It would be fun if he won it.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2028733,00.html

Not sure of the subtsance in this, but I read a 100% vote invalidates your vote, oddly. 98% is what should be used, on the slider.

Clawdeeus · 06-12-2010 04:28AM

Ok, woah, did they just step over a line. I just jumped to another side of the fence on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

SamHarris · 06-12-2010 04:46AM

"The overarching goal of the NIPP is to build a safer,
more secure, and more resilient America by enhancing
protection of the nation's CI/KR to prevent, deter, neutralize
or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to
destroy, incapacitate or exploit them; and to strengthen national
preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event
of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency."

And they felt the need to release this list? I think the US is now well
within its rights to prosecute. Any state would be.

Im well aware a bunch of people from the far left will still seek to defend this, but I can tell you right now **** has just changed for the american people, they will not take this lying down, nore should they.

castie · 06-12-2010 04:53AM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Ok, woah, did they just step over a line. I just jumped to another side of the fence on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

The more they hunt this guy the more dangerous it could really get.
The way there going after him in the light of day for everyone to see suggests to me that he has a lot worse on them to disclose.

brendansmith · 06-12-2010 05:19AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The one currently being negotiated in secret. Don't believe me? Chances arethat's what they would have said in 1978

You didnt sign this one.

Was it not as much of a ground-breaking insight into your genius as the rest of your posts?

SamHarris · 06-12-2010 05:25AM

castie wrote: »

The more they hunt this guy the more dangerous it could really get.
The way there going after him in the light of day for everyone to see suggests to me that he has a lot worse on them to disclose.

You say "alot worse" as though its the same as "alot more damaging" it is not. So you are saying he should not be pursued because he could release information that could be very helpful to the US' enemies? I remind you, this is NOT the same as releasing something that is damaging to the US' reputation. No, this HAS stepped over the line of responsible reporting.

SamHarris · 06-12-2010 05:29AM

castie wrote: »

The more they hunt this guy the more dangerous it could really get.
The way there going after him in the light of day for everyone to see suggests to me that he has a lot worse on them to disclose.

Also, important point, up untill now the US government has not been "hunting" him, they were unable to bring a case against him, he was protected by the first amendment. That may have just changed.

Fremen · 06-12-2010 05:46AM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Ok, woah, did they just step over a line. I just jumped to another side of the fence on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Wow. Just, wow.

I don't think I really appreciated the scope of what's happening here before now. This really could be a game changer. It may be as big as the September 11th attacks in terms of historical significance. Every government on earth is going to be watching this and thinking "what if this happens to us?".

I don't know what's going to happen, but the internet won't be the same after this.

Einhard · 06-12-2010 05:52AM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Ok, woah, did they just step over a line. I just jumped to another side of the fence on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Two Irish facilities on that list. I wonder if the supporters of Assange would be so assiduous in leaping to his defence were the Genzyme plant in Waterford subject to a terror attack?

We need open, more transparent governments, but Wikileaks is not the way to go about it. It's like releasing senstive police files on ongoing investigations and claiming its in the interests of more accountable policing. Wikileaks is irresponsile and self serving, and Assange seems more like an egotist with a David complex than a crusader in the public interest.

SamHarris · 06-12-2010 06:12AM

Its strange, I'm actually angry, even though I'm a libertarian, am absolutly against most US foreign policy and am completly in favour of almost entire government transparancy.

Stuff has just really changed for wikileaks staff, they have gone from an annoyance to the American government to a serious threat to the US people in one swoop.

Biggins · 06-12-2010 09:24AM

SamHarris wrote: »

...Stuff has just really changed for wikileaks staff, they have gone from an annoyance to the American government to a serious threat to the US people in one swoop.

...So did Sadam Hussian and his weapons of destruction - when it was convenient of course for the American government to see him and portray him to the public that way! :rolleyes:

The American political system is so full of schite that if they said it was snowing outside, I'd still check myself as I don't trust the lying basterds!

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments