WikiLeaks

[dee-u]

Hmmnn... I am wondering why no one here has mentioned about it?

[kregg]

I was planning on writing a blog post about it on my blog, but since I'm here, I might as well talk about it.

What's with Julian Assange and this whole rape accusation? Everywhere I hear about it, it aways seems that the media always chooses either "Assange, the saviour, he cannot do anything like this surely?" or "Assange, the devil, he is very evil and so is his WikiLeaks website" etc. I just don't get why it seems hard to acknowledge that, yes - the organisation he has founded has done good by exposing a lot of stuff such as the US Army killing innocent journalists, but this doesn't make him less capable of rape, etc. I can understand that a lot of countries aren't too happy (to say the least) of Wikileaks, but I can't see how accusing him of rape is some kind of political weapon that will silence him and his followers.

The only reason people like myself like WikiLeaks is because the news is more closer to the truth than we've had before, not because Assange is our hero.

[JuggaloBrotha]

The one time 4chan does something good for the world, course now the FCC is pushing to regulate the un-regulatable.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I just don't get why it seems hard to acknowledge that, yes - the organisation he has founded has done good by exposing a lot of stuff such as the US Army killing innocent journalists, but this doesn't make him less capable of rape, etc. I can understand that a lot of countries aren't too happy (to say the least) of Wikileaks, but I can't see how accusing him of rape is some kind of political weapon that will silence him and his followers.

The Rape arrest is a bit odd though. Sweden have issued a European Arrest Warrant for a man that they only want to bring in for questioning. There have been no charges raised against him, and it is very unusual for an international arrest warrant to be used in this manner when no charge has been brought.

The only reason people like myself like WikiLeaks is because the news is more closer to the truth than we've had before, not because Assange is our hero.

Well said. More transparency not less is what we need in international politics !

[SambaNeko]

Hmmnn... I am wondering why no one here has mentioned about it?

Fatigue of hearing about it elsewhere?

From what I've read, the rape charge sounds bogus (and who ever heard of Interpol going after someone for a rape charge...). He just angered a lot of powerful people who need a reason both to smear and imprison him. Hopefully he won't meet an unjust fate, but it won't silence leaks on the internet either way.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you hear the details of the rape charge, it is seriously suspect. Both women admitted to having consensual sex with Assange, and initially, they were both mostly interested in him getting an STD test. It escalated after that. I think further details of the case probably don't belong here, but if anybody is interested they can certainly find the rest of the story elsewhere. The guy doesn't sound like a particularly pleasant person, but this sounds like a witch hunt.

[dee-u]

I am quite more interested with the hacker's war between Assange's group/supporters vs those trying to put his website down, it is just similar to Bruce Willis' Die Hard movie. =)

[Doogle]

Disregarding the potential charge of 'receiving stolen property' it looks like a case of 'shooting the messenger'

Of course, all the publicity is about Assange; the Press doesn't seem to have asked the question "How did he get the data in the first place?" If all this information is so potentially damaging then I'd expect its Security Marking to be very high and the processes and procedures to protect it to be very stringent. How someone could walk off with 250,000 items of highly sensitive information is just beyond me.

It's along time ago since I had to deal with 'sensitive' data but the ground rules were 'need to know' and traceability of data - ie you know that nothing is 100% secure so the next best thing is to know when it's been compromised and by whom. (eg a log of who accessed the information and when - as the Meerkat says, "simples")

Now, I wonder, did the US deliberately 'leak' the information for some, as yet unidentified, reason?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Now, I wonder, did the US deliberately 'leak' the information for some, as yet unidentified, reason?

What reason could they possibly have ? that sounds like a bit of a red-herring to me, a bit conspiracy theory-ish. Anyway i thought they had already found the guy that leaked the data !

How someone could walk off with 250,000 items of highly sensitive information is just beyond me.

Does it really ? in the UK our politicians / Civil Service do not exactly have the best record when it comes to losing or leaking data.

[dbasnett]

"The only reason people like myself like WikiLeaks is because the news is more closer to the truth than we've had before, not because Assange is our hero."

So you are saying that there is a piece of information unknown to you, and then WikiLeaks publishes something on its site and you know it is the truth. Or did you mean to say that WikiLeaks says things you are inclined to believe in the first place?

For the last week we have been talking about the news media in my American Gov't class. It is shocking how many of the students get their information from one or two places. One of the students even said that he didn't watch one of the media giants newscast because he often didn't agree with their point of view. Whatever happened to listening to ALL opinions and synthesizing your own opinion?

If I assume that what WikiLeaks posted was actually secret information, then the person leaking the information should go to prison for life, and Mr. Assange can join him. But I am prejudiced, and was in the Navy a long time ago. There was no question about what would happen if we compromised security.

[Shaggy Hiker]

But I am prejudiced, and was in the Navy a long time ago. There was no question about what would happen if we compromised security.

That's because you were on the bottom. No administration to date has stopped leaks from within. This may be larger, but it isn't actually new. We talk up security, then you find that somebody left some documents on a train, or was routinely taking them home. If it isn't that, then somebody is leaking the information deliberately for political gain, such as Scooter Libby getting fired for leaking the cover of a CIA agent to discredit somebody. He lost some of his pension, what would have happened to YOU for leaking classified information that endangered peoples lives?

We ARE the weakest link.

[dbasnett]

That's because you were on the bottom. No administration to date has stopped leaks from within. This may be larger, but it isn't actually new. We talk up security, then you find that somebody left some documents on a train, or was routinely taking them home. If it isn't that, then somebody is leaking the information deliberately for political gain, such as Scooter Libby getting fired for leaking the cover of a CIA agent to discredit somebody. He lost some of his pension, what would have happened to YOU for leaking classified information that endangered peoples lives?

We ARE the weakest link.

Not quite the bottom, but my clearance wasn't secret, and what I could see would have put everyone of us in danger had I decided to "leak" it. We could have have an entire discussion about what is a secret.

My opinion is that most of what I have heard from the Wiki leaks isn't secret, maybe sensitive, IF any of it is true.

There is a great deal of naive discussion about this entire thing. I try not to get my information from one source, or one viewpoint. Take the local paper, CBS, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, PBS, and BBC America, shake them up, and the truth MIGHT appear.

My Am. Gov't professor has been pounding this message for a week and I have to say that it appears that most of the kids in my class don't get it, or care.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Not quite the bottom,

The Navy is bottom enough, in this case. It is a level above a serving service man where you can get away with nearly anything.

There is a great deal of naive discussion about this entire thing. I try not to get my information from one source, or one viewpoint. Take the local paper, CBS, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, PBS, and BBC America, shake them up, and the truth MIGHT appear.

My Am. Gov't professor has been pounding this message for a week and I have to say that it appears that most of the kids in my class don't get it, or care.

In many ways, it doesn't matter anymore. Many years back, the VAST majority of all the information people received, and the VAST majority of the information that had direct impacts on their lives, was local. The national and international news that reached people was avidly read, but compared to today, it was a trickle. Now, regardless of what your opinion is, you can restrict your news input to just those sources that agree with your opinion. Better yet, for virtually everybody, the bulk of the news is second hand at best. For instance, I only believe that Obama exists becuase of news that I have seen. I have never met the guy, nor seen him in person. I am also well aware that very real looking pictures and movies can be created that don't represent reality. This means that any particular piece of information can be faked, and that is roughly the position that any person has on any complex situation. Consider the housing meltdown. The left and the right have different causes for it. It's not that one side is right and the other side is wrong, it is actually that the truth encompasses both positions and much more beyond that. What people are doing is taking a position and filtering for just data that supports the position. We are probably incapable of doing otherwise, because, for a situation as complex as that, we are probably incapable of holding the extent of it in our heads in any coherent fashion. We also know that data can be faked, so we accept what fits our models, and assume that the contradictory information is fake. That appears to be how people are dealing with most complex issues. Heck, it may be the only way we CAN deal with complex issues, but now everybody can talk about it.

[kregg]

So you are saying that there is a piece of information unknown to you, and then WikiLeaks publishes something on its site and you know it is the truth. Or did you mean to say that WikiLeaks says things you are inclined to believe in the first place?

I'll be honest, it is a mix of both: usually I've seen some hard data (e.g. documents, video, etc) on WikiLeaks, and I know more about the situation (but that doesn't mean to say that WikiLeaks paints the complete picture, it just paints a bigger picture than what we get from the media as usual.

Sometimes I have stumbled across something that I find very hard to digest (i.e. those journalists that were killed by US Army), so I just wouldn't believe that sort of behaviour from the US Army, out of all people.

For the last week we have been talking about the news media in my American Gov't class. It is shocking how many of the students get their information from one or two places. One of the students even said that he didn't watch one of the media giants newscast because he often didn't agree with their point of view. Whatever happened to listening to ALL opinions and synthesizing your own opinion?

If I assume that what WikiLeaks posted was actually secret information, then the person leaking the information should go to prison for life, and Mr. Assange can join him. But I am prejudiced, and was in the Navy a long time ago. There was no question about what would happen if we compromised security.

I admit, I am terribly guilty of this with general news. I generally tend not to get too caught up heavily in any news articles that isn't simply because I do not care about them as I do with tech articles. For example, with any news relating to a new gadget that I would be extremely interested in, I don't read one article, I read several articles as well as user reviews of that product to get a more realistic picture of the phone. When it comes to any Apple product, I have to read multiple sources (if the main source, the Apple website, doesn't have any info) because there is such extreme bias towards and against the products itself, it is ridiculous.

When it comes to the WikiLeaks article above - the US Army killing of the journalists - I have to admit I just read one source - the WikiLeaks source. This was because of 2 things:

1. There was video evidence clearly showing the event with the date stamp and such. While this could be faked, from what I read about the US Army trying so hard to prevent this video being leaked and to prevent any other information about this event being exposed made me assume this was pretty legitimate. It could have been faked with modern technology, but I find that very hard to imagine, although I can understand why some people would go out of their way to do so.
2. The fact that a military representing a western country could be so irresponsible to actually kill people who didn't have actual weapons (as shown clearly in the video) was bad enough for me, and not a lot else could have convinced me or made the picture any bigger... for me anyways

Now I should have read other news sources instead of just being warped up in the media frenzy that the guy leaked this video and other documents. I should have taken some time to analyse the video sources and other things to make sure that it is very official, but I'm going to say something that will probably destroy my credibility in this topic - I'm not too interested in these news articles enough to be stuck on my seat looking at mutiple sources to find out more and more.

In short, I wanted my "media hit" at the time and I got it through the article - a "media hit" being some kind of sensationalized article or documents to get people riled up - even if I didn't realise it at the time. It's the same reason why I come back to reading articles about Apple, Bobby Kotick, Valve, Peter Molyneux, or other over-hyped events that most of the general public don't know about - even though I know deep inside it's more of the same crap, even though I could practically guess how the article will be worded - even before the article is opened or even created.

That's not to say the more sensationalized the article, the better - if this was the case I'd probably be reading the Daily Mail (DM) by now trying to get in on some juicy bull, but I prefer something with more credibility. How much more depends on the topic of the news (gaming - just a little more than the DM, gadgets - I'd like some sources linked please, and real life events - A moderate amount to not make me feel like someone is just talking rubbish just to get a lot of people reading and talking about their articles).

I know I should read both sides of the story before I judge, I know I should definitely read more sources before I open my mouth and criticize/praise, but life is no fun that way - I could go around reading it, but having a discussion with like-minded people with polarising views is, in my opinion, a lot more better than reading all of the information about the topic.

I guess what I am trying to say is not reading in depth of things reduces the feeling of being caught up in something big, and it definitely reduces the social impact - like if I talk to my friends about a topic, I can not only understand more about a topic, but I understand about how their minds work, which I find pretty fascinating.

[dbasnett]

@shag - I don't know how to take this, "The Navy is bottom enough, in this case. It is a level above a serving service man where you can get away with nearly anything." After 30+ years I am still hesitant to talk about my experience or my clearance. The truth is I did not really pay attention to the information I was handling. I never thought about doing what Pfc. Manning did.

[zaza]

As a corollary to the above, don't forget that those with something to gain or lose from WikiLeaks equally pick and choose their evidence to support their position. There are undoubtedly bits of information released here that could compromise American (or another nation's) security to some degree; those who wish to adopt a position of outrage at that or who have something to lose from that compromise will be able to seize upon those pieces of information to support their argument and demand the complete silencing of WikiLeaks.

Equally, WikiLeaks will undobtedly reveal some pieces of information which expose corruption, double-dealing or other illegalities by prominent politicians, military personnel and so on, as a result of which investigations can be made, people held to account etc. Those who wish to see less corruption in public life, and remind those at the top that their abuses of power can one day come back to haunt them will seize upon these revelations to support their cause.


Most people will agree that we do not want to see national security compromised, soldiers or civilians unnecessarily endangered, and that we do want to see corrupt politicians held accountable.
However, as always, people may have other vested interests. Corrupt politicians may suddenly discover a pronounced interest in national security. Terrorists may suddenly embrace freedom of speech. Further, the grey areas are mostly subjective; if private emails are released revealing unflattering opinions which, had they been spoken publicly would constitute slander, from one ambassador about a foreign leader, does that constitute a threat to national security and international relations? Or does it allow a nation to reassess its relationship with a country previously regarded as a close ally? There are always two sides to the coin.

I suspect that what upsets a lot of people most of all is that they have no control over Mr Assange; it is he who gets to decide whether a piece of information is in the public interest or not, and he who decides if it is too sensitive to be released. His selection is probably very different to that of the CIA, or Al-Qaeda, or you, or me. Ultimately, he knows the game he playing, and who he's playing it with, and now that he's dealt himself in and won a few rounds he's going to have to see the game through.

As far as the rape smear goes, that's clearly just one of what will be a number of attempts to discredit him, not because it makes his leaks any more or less truthful but so that people subconsciously associate reading his material with the act of rape and perhaps a number of them will stop reading it. The biggest danger for those who would see WikiLeaks suppressed is that he gains a large popular following.

[Shaggy Hiker]

@shag - I don't know how to take this, "The Navy is bottom enough, in this case. It is a level above a serving service man where you can get away with nearly anything." After 30+ years I am still hesitant to talk about my experience or my clearance. The truth is I did not really pay attention to the information I was handling. I never thought about doing what Pfc. Manning did.

And now he plays for the Giants.

The point is that servicemen are still held responsible for their actions, but some politician level types are not.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Some of the information leaked will pay off pretty well....or not. The leaks about what other heads of state for some middle east countries have said about Iran could help. If we took any action against Iran, they would have denounced us, but now it is clear that they were privately supportive. This could create less jeopardy for us in the near term. On the other hand, the leaks might make heads of state considerably more circumspect in what they say to us even in private, which might ultimately make positions more opaque.

Short term gain, long term loss...or not.

[honeybee]

The only lesson I can draw from this all is use a good quality protection that won't let you down when you are in the ... umm... thick of things.

,