Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 12/15/2010 at 6:30 PM, o00o said:

wikileaks.org is back online

looks like the old site

The Inhumane Conditions of Bradley Manning's Detention

"I'll bet you either ten bucks ... [Manning] doesn't do more than six months"

-Adrian Lamo, the quaint snitch, the informant, & the now excommunicated from most hacker communities for turning in Bradley Manning to the US government authorities

edit: why hasn't anonymous turned their attention to Lamo yet? I think he deserves it far more than mastercard

and if anyone needs a refresher course on how the Wired writer Kevin Paulson helped smear Bradley Manning aided by the government informant Adrian Lamo

go here

the person who supposedly actually leaked the vid and some of these documents to wikileaks is sitting in solitary confinement with no charges while the whole world rallies for Julian Assange's release. Something wrong with this picture?

i love wikileaks, but people going thru an okcupid profile he made about 4 years ago, disseminating it and coming to the verdict that he is an idiot is just the lamest form of straw-clutchery going and i simply had to troll. anyway, continue thread.

michael moore was on newsnight last night waving around his visa card that he'd cut in half in protest.

so i guess assange has nothing to worry about now that michael moore is behind him.

edit: 420th post smoEK W33D aLl D@y bRo

people will always find some stupid thread to try and discredit something with. You have to resort to logical fallacies (strawman, ad hominem, changing the goal posts) to actually portray wikileaks as some kind of dangerous or evil entity. You will rarely ever see someone leveling a fair criticism towards Julian Assange, overwhelmingly they are designed based on some false premise. Im not talking about people here, im talking about journalism and how for months we were told he had 'blood on his hands'

FREE BRADLEY MANNING

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:48 PM, Atop said:

FREE BRADLEY MANNING

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:48 PM, Atop said:

FREE BRADLEY MANNING

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:48 PM, Atop said:

FREE BRADLEY MANNING

New leak: Sweden working with US without telling parliament

I wonder how this will complicate things...

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:15 PM, Funktion said:

i love wikileaks, but people going thru an okcupid profile he made about 4 years ago, disseminating it and coming to the verdict that he is an idiot is just the lamest form of straw-clutchery going and i simply had to troll. anyway, continue thread.

 

fuck that. I can call an idiot an idiot, and besides I thought wikileaks was bigger than assange? Just because someone performs something that can be considered a noble act doesn't mean he can't be an idiot.

  On 12/15/2010 at 10:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:15 PM, Funktion said:

i love wikileaks, but people going thru an okcupid profile he made about 4 years ago, disseminating it and coming to the verdict that he is an idiot is just the lamest form of straw-clutchery going and i simply had to troll. anyway, continue thread.

 

 

fuck that. I can call an idiot an idiot, and besides I thought wikileaks was bigger than assange? Just because someone performs something that can be considered a noble act doesn't mean he can't be an idiot.

Im not going mental, this thread doesnt keep changing titles right?

o00o is changing the title as the situation develops

let's beat the now playing thread

  On 12/15/2010 at 10:36 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 6:54 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 5:16 AM, luke viia said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 4:31 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this. it blows my mind how some in here are against total transparency...isn't that the entire point of elected government, to be completely 100% transparent and beholden to its electorate?

 

? The point of elected government is that you elect the officials.

 

  Quote

I mean, lets settle the double standard. Either you are for a legitimate and total idea of republicanism/democracy and therefore complete transparency, or you are bullshitting and don't want to be concerned with these matters on a daily basis, let the government choose for you, and better yet, keep it from you so that you aren't even bothered.

 

Again, ?

 

Where are you getting this? Since when does democracy = total transparency?

 

  Quote

Am I making sense?

 

Not really.

 

  Quote

Christ. Ill just facepalm myself.

 

 

OK then.

 

 

wow you are a bit of a dick, aren't ya.

 

 

I'm going off of Enlightenment ideals of democracy, not Plato or Hobbes. Tocqueville, Paine, many others. It is there. I didn't make this shit up.

 

The 18th Century ideal of Republicanism was that they did elect officials, but as INFORMED and educated civilians. You can't be informed about what your elected officials are doing if they don't have to tell you what they are doing. Hence, the exercise is worthless.

 

 

also, since when did democracy=total transparency?

 

ask the officials that say just that. they didn't pull the concept out of their ass. theres a reason they trot that line out for the public to eat up.

 

Not going to get into whether or not a Republic should be transparent, or in which specific areas, but I do believe that diplomacy needs to be able to operate "in secret" to a fair degree. You can't make deals with the media and interest groups breathing down your neck. I agree that those in the elected govt with the proper clearance should get access to this info, and I agree there should be limits to secrecy - I like the freedom of information act and in general approve of things needing to be brought out in the open after enough time has passed.

 

I think breaking this secrecy should only be done if there is sufficient cause, such as significant, widespread corruption (eg. Watergate). However I'm not sure what I've read so far (admittedly skimmed) warrants the leaks. It's interesting, sure, to know that people are worried about Iran, Karzai is unreliable etc but does it rise to the level of a smoking gun regarding corruption? I read a lot of stuff that sounded like it was written by well-meaning diplomats, which was nice to see. There was the lurid story of the (Afghani?) boys being used by some company for sex, ok that's bad, and can be chucked in the "fucked up shit" bin along with Blackwater, Abu Ghraib etc , but not sure how much of it was sanctioned by higher-ups in the US?

 

I'm most interested in the larger issue of net neutrality, of which I'm a strong advocate. I think the concentration of power, whether it be in governments or corporations, is fucking scary. Frankly I think it's the responsibility of companies and the govt. to hide their own shit - if it leaks, and someone publishes it, they might be able to prosecute the leaker if he violated an NDA or contract, but not the media/messenger. Seeing what's happening to Assange is disturbing. I'm also still unclear on how much info was directly hacked by Wikileaks (a crime) or how much was simply disseminated by Wikileaks (not a crime imo).

Interesting points from both of you here. If democracy is, by its definition, people's consensual government, how this consensus can ever be achieved if the sole modus operandi is hidden away from people? Or by becoming more and more centralized?

I'm not saying that democracy as a system exists like it does in order to let anyone take advantage of it. It is the lack of transparency that does exactly that. The system has its flaws that must be optimized. I see this from the point where leading a country is to be a position with very carefully elected people. People who posess exceptional skills in various fields - or to form teams that cover various expertise in order to address as many challenges as possible. Not just the most adept talkers or enigmatic personas (or even show-biz ). There should be defined qualities of leaders put forward. Transparency then guards this stronghold of righteous agenda. The tendency to hide away from people allows some to keep powerfull positions even though they are never fully correspondant to it. And The Leaks show exactly that. People are in those positions out of personal agendas and rarely for the consensual people. There are ruthless people who decide - with lack of respect for other national entities, people who think high of themselves out of patriotic indoctrinations, rather than pursuing peacefull, constructive dialog.

  On 12/15/2010 at 10:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:15 PM, Funktion said:

i love wikileaks, but people going thru an okcupid profile he made about 4 years ago, disseminating it and coming to the verdict that he is an idiot is just the lamest form of straw-clutchery going and i simply had to troll. anyway, continue thread.

 

 

fuck that. I can call an idiot an idiot, and besides I thought wikileaks was bigger than assange? Just because someone performs something that can be considered a noble act doesn't mean he can't be an idiot.

you have small genitals.

  On 12/15/2010 at 9:00 PM, Kcinsu said:

New leak: Sweden working with US without telling parliament

 

I wonder how this will complicate things...

no comments?

  On 12/15/2010 at 3:56 PM, lumpenprol said:

they made the safe choice, but I don't blame them. Facebook is more important than Wikileaks/Assange, at this moment, imo.

i feel stupid for asking this but, you're joking right?

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:16 AM, Godwin Austen said:

Interesting points from both of you here. If democracy is, by its definition, people's consensual government, how this consensus can ever be achieved if the sole modus operandi is hidden away from people? Or by becoming more and more centralized?

 

I'm not saying that democracy as a system exists like it does in order to let anyone take advantage of it. It is the lack of transparency that does exactly that. The system has its flaws that must be optimized. I see this from the point where leading a country is to be a position with very carefully elected people. People who posess exceptional skills in various fields - or to form teams that cover various expertise in order to address as many challenges as possible. Not just the most adept talkers or enigmatic personas (or even show-biz ). There should be defined qualities of leaders put forward. Transparency then guards this stronghold of righteous agenda. The tendency to hide away from people allows some to keep powerfull positions even though they are never fully correspondant to it. And The Leaks show exactly that. People are in those positions out of personal agendas and rarely for the consensual people. There are ruthless people who decide - with lack of respect for other national entities, people who think high of themselves out of patriotic indoctrinations, rather than pursuing peacefull, constructive dialog.

I'm sure everyone will jump on here to shout "US is a republic, not a democracy." But anyway, there are many institutional rules that were created precisely to water down representative govt and the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers were of course snobs, and wanted educated, landed gentry to run things. Point being there are many layers in the US govt between the "vox populi" and the folks running the show.

As for the other part of what you said, ironically you can make the opposite argument that longer term limits and a bit more secrecy prevents members of govt. (Senators for example) from having to pander to every interest group, become media whores, etc etc etc because they have more job security. Transparency really is a double-edged sword.

Like I said, I was only speaking to a specific arena, the diplomatic one. And yeah, in that sphere, I think secrecy (which sounds kind of pejorative; I'd say "privacy" or "closed door negotiation") is essential to prevent all the fucking idiots out there from going apeshit and blowing everything out of proportion.

  On 12/16/2010 at 6:11 AM, david said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 3:56 PM, lumpenprol said:

they made the safe choice, but I don't blame them. Facebook is more important than Wikileaks/Assange, at this moment, imo.

 

i feel stupid for asking this but, you're joking right?

As far as I can tell, Facebook has created a new form of networking throughout the entire globe. That's important.

So far what I've got from Wikileaks is:

1) a video of a helicopter attack that was shocking, but no worse than the attacks I used to see on Ogrish back in the day (and I didn't like the way Assange edited his for maximum shock value)

2) a huge amount of "well duh" sorts of low-secrecy diplomatic docs

3) some almost water-cooler level gossip about different global leaders

4) an expose of a particular company's wrongdoings in Afghanistan (newsworthy, but not groundbreaking)

5) further confirmation, if any was necessary, that the digital age requires people to be even more careful about their secret shit (but the Miley Cyrus bong vid demonstrates the same phenomenon)

Interesting yes, but I wouldn't call Assange a hero - what has he really accomplished? I'm not sure. If the docs showed something like "Russia conspires with North Korea to attack China" that'd be news.

irish government colluded with vatican officials to cover up child abuse

us government colluded with afghan government to cover up child abuse

sweden is a secret member of NATO

most of the real gold isn't being properly reported

fuck government documents, i want texts on aliens n'shit

that, apparently, is on the way.

although i wouldn't expect too much.

  On 12/16/2010 at 6:57 AM, kaini said:

irish government colluded with vatican officials to cover up child abuse

us government colluded with afghan government to cover up child abuse

sweden is a secret member of NATO

 

most of the real gold isn't being properly reported

agreed, those are all interesting. I think the way this will end up being most interesting is if it spells the end of net neutrality in some way. Jury is still out on that.

  On 12/16/2010 at 5:07 AM, Funktion said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 10:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 8:15 PM, Funktion said:

i love wikileaks, but people going thru an okcupid profile he made about 4 years ago, disseminating it and coming to the verdict that he is an idiot is just the lamest form of straw-clutchery going and i simply had to troll. anyway, continue thread.

 

 

fuck that. I can call an idiot an idiot, and besides I thought wikileaks was bigger than assange? Just because someone performs something that can be considered a noble act doesn't mean he can't be an idiot.

 

 

you have small genitals.

I think they're average sized myself.

Look: Assange doesn't have blood on his hands for releasing documents and videos, it's a good thing, and casting more light on how government operates is necessary.

But the shit he posted on his OKcupid profile is inane, makes terrible value judgments, and honestly makes him seem like a bit of a creep.

when oil hits the fan...

  On 12/16/2010 at 5:27 AM, Kcinsu said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 9:00 PM, Kcinsu said:

New leak: Sweden working with US without telling parliament

 

I wonder how this will complicate things...

 

no comments?

swedish parliament is going apeshit over this stuff.