WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets 385
formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'"
I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.
The wikileaks (Score:3, Insightful)
be used to wage war against information access, like 9-11 is used to wage war against liberty and freedom.
Fix the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, wikileaks' information is probably much more reliable, especially on matters concerning African elephants.
Re:Fix the summary (Score:4, Funny)
The US Media is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Media is useless and most people I've heard are quite misinformed about Wikileaks. This is NOT news, WikiLeaks has been working with major news outlets (mostly not in USA) for a while now. Back when the politicians were claiming lives lost and the huge evil of the war log leaks the Media didn't report that WikiLeaks was also working with news partners and the NYTimes was working on it with the Gov to make the leaks "responsible." Sure, mistakes were still made - it was not the big deal like it was blown into. The US Media doesn't think or work for a living, they just repeat what the Gov or talking heads or AstroTurf group says and hardly even moderates between those.
I'm all for redundant news about how WikiLeaks isn't the only one involved.
Notice how WikiLeaks is being targeted so much stronger now when instead of WAR information? This had to be the last straw, can't let average to stupid people think badly of our 'diplomacy'! Forget the losing of two wars and the MILLION+ dead people you can't give away our diplomatic policies! I don't think most people would be surprised if they leaked that Iraq was ONLY for oil but WikiLeaks would get bombed and Bush still wouldn't be within eyesight of protesters let alone prosecuted.
Re:Fix the summary (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.
Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]
These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Re:Fix the summary (Score:5, Funny)
However we all know no laws apply on the internet unless they were introduced via bills with "E-" or "cyber" in the name.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, all of those are US Law, which certainly applies (and should) to the US Citizen (military employee) who illegally copied the information and disseminated it. Those laws of course *do not* apply to non-US Citizens who receive said information.
Now, whether they might be guilty under some "receiving stolen goods" type of international law might be arguable, but Assange/Wikileaks did not, technically, break any US laws.
Try telling that to the yanks. Non US citizens been extradited for [wikipedia.org] breaking US law though they were British citizens living in Britain omitting an offence against a British company based in London.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's too late, unfortunately. I was eating at some local old-folks' restaurant and the three old ladies next to my table were talking about that "dreadful wikipedia" blah blah anti-American wharrgarble. People are so fucking stupid and ignorant in the middle of the USA. I wanted to stab them in their wrinkled faces with my steak knife (seriously).
Re:Fix the summary (Score:5, Funny)
Well that's just brilliant. After two weeks of cable releases from Wikileaks, the rest of the world can look forward with confidence to the US invasion of Wikipedia.
WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Informative)
What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Thats utter nonsense. When has any other major media organization ever received classified information that it decided to reveal even after being told numerous times by the us government to not post it?e?
Guess you didn't bother to research that claim.
Pentagon Papers was the first thing that came to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [wikipedia.org]. Watergate was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal [wikipedia.org]. Plenty others exist if you want more examples.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes - we are being attacked and those against us lack patriotism and expose the country to danger, right?
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read your history kid (Score:5, Interesting)
Cause you have a lot to learn.
When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power, and naked greed THEN we'll have a discussion about it. Until then tough shit for them. If it takes having Wikileaks and Julian Assange out there to clean it up then I say I want to see 100 or 1000 more just like them. Turn over every single rock under which any secret lurks. Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple.
Re:Go read your history kid (Score:4, Insightful)
"When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power..."
That is at the heart of this war. The US government and military have abused their ability to classify information to the point that classification has become meaningless.
"Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple."
I don't agree here. Classification of information is essential to any government or military (to a point). Unless your ultimate goal is to get rid of government altogether, but that is a different discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Secrecy or the information hasn't been made public? There's a huge difference between the government claiming that information is classified and it is illegal to reveal it and a private organization that doesn't reveal information by choice. That information is easily subject to being made public and any court has the authority to demand it under penalty of law. It is a whole different animal.
The government and a private organization are entirely different in very important ways beyond that. The government
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Being part of the free press ... doesn't give you cover to work with a person who is illegally stealing and transferring classified documents. Period.
Sure it does. If it doesn't in the US (with may or may not be the case - IANAL), this merely means that you have no free press there and not that a free press cannot work with and publish information obtained by and published by others (criminals or not) or has not the right and obligation to protect their sources.
And btw: stealing is when I take something away from you so that you no longer have it. Copying - by definition - can never be stealing as the term implies that the original is still there. So the term you're looking for is "copyright infringement", "licence violation" or something similar. Not quite as Manichean, I know, but the truth rarely is.
ignatius
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the Supreme Court ruled that the press absolutely have the right to print about "Top Secret" stolen documents when it is news worthy or in the interest of the public good.
The press is not liable for the theft of information that someone else did. That is the law of the United States and is Constitutional law now. Period end, do not pass go. Everyone can scream what about the people in the reports, or what about the damage it might do. It does *NOT* matter. It is 100% legal, end of story.
This was true for the "Pentagon Papers" that were "Top Secret" documents. It was true of the "Watergate Scandal" papers that were "Secret" and "Top Secret". It didn't matter how they were classified, the courts ruled the press didn't steal them, and it was in the interest of the public to see them, so they could legally publish them. End of story.
You can even then throw in the whistle blower laws, and it becomes even more clear that this is supported by law and the Supreme Court.
Not just a moron, but an oxymoron (Score:4, Funny)
overtly using as blackmail
You're an idiot. An ironic idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.
P.S. Overt blackmail leads to soft violence, dark brightness, and then loud silence. It's a rough slippery slope.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not just a moron, but an oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, it's not blackmail because they're not trying to illegitimately get something from them with he threat of releasing the information, they're trying to make sure they don't get a cruise missile in the face.
Calling that blackmail is stupid or dishonest.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. Comma. It does. Semicolon. It is the very definition of. Double quote. Free press. Double quote. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you absolutely [wikipedia.org] sure [wikipedia.org] about that?
Yes, they did.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm actually newspapers actually did get into long conversations with people who have released classified papers. You might want to look up the "Pentagon Papers" and the "Watergate Scandal". In both cases they did talk with the people who stole the documents for an extended period to make sure they were legit, and who they could fact check the papers with. So yes the newspaper do talk with their sources for extended periods.
The Constitution does not say who does and does not get to be part of the press. If
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Informative)
What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)
No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else.
They don't leak, but they do facilitate leaks. By providing the secure setup they presumably encourage leaks that would not otherwise occur, and distribute material that might be containable by the authorities if the leakers had gone to a more traditional outlet.
So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?
Simply put, the attacks aren't justified, but people in the press and government are self-righteous assholes.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)
So what was Bob Woodward doing when he refused to reveal the identity of Deep Throat? What have countless other journalists done in refusing to reveal sources, to the point of being put in jail for contempt of court?
Re: (Score:3)
They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)
So what was Bob Woodward doing when he refused to reveal the identity of Deep Throat? What have countless other journalists done in refusing to reveal sources, to the point of being put in jail for contempt of court?
THIS got insightful? WTF? The clear difference, the absolutely painfully OBVIOUS difference, was that Bob Woodward knew the identity of Deep Throat and Deep Throat relied on him not to tell. The difference is that Woodward didn't do a single thing I just described. Deep Throat knew the whole time that if Woodward woke up tomorrow and had a change of heart, he would be revealed. The anonymous drop-box is a mechanism which presents that possibility, because Assange and Co. never know who does the leaking
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Informative)
>What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.
They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.
*example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:
"Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.
Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.
[...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.
The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."
Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."
It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched [guardian.co.uk]
Traditional media is under control (Score:5, Insightful)
The USG has nothing to fear from the NYT or any other news source. They are always interested in keeping access to government officials, so they never step over the line when reporting the news. They don't report on the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Editors at the major media companies are good friends with everyone in Washington and Wall Street, so you can't get good coverage there either.
Even looking at coverage of WikiLeaks, how many are reporting that the US State Department new immediately that the coup in Honduras was illegal, and then publicly stated a month later that they hadn't decided what had happened? How many are reporting that Hillary Clinton knew Saudi Arabia was the main funding source for the worst extremist groups in the world, but did not publicly reveal this to US Citizens for fear of damaging trade relations with the oil barons?
You would think that would even be front page news on Fox, who'd bread is buttered by fear mongering about muslim terrorists, but it's always below the fold, or on some opinion column that never sees the front page. That's because one of their main investors is a Saudi Prince.
A truly independent press is too dangerous for the United States to tolerate. It's told too many lies to too many people for too long. They know WikiLeaks has zero self-interest in American interests, and that's why the organization is so feared.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell
Re:Traditional media is under control (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Part of our problems are a result of the free press being neutered. It gives us a continuous stream of tabloid style "people behaving badly" crap, but it's all personal baggage and gossip. The real crimes go unreported because professional political reporters know their career is over if the invites to the press conferences dry up. They can avoid that by sticking to gossiping about the designated scapegoat. Newspapers don't pay reporters to spend weeks pursuing a single story anymore, they need easy sources to keep up the volume.
This is why the DOJ fights so hard for a narrow definition of press. They don't want people with day jobs who can afford to spend weeks digging to be granted appropriate legal protections.
Re: (Score:3)
So it cannot be independent. It serves the US Government as all who don't have an Army must do.
They don't need an army. They need leverage. And they have it.
You just forgot what they want. They want profit. They sell what they can. Silence frequently pays better than truth.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, Robert Novak should be held to the same standard for reporting that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He received classified information, was warned not to divulge it, but did so anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Robert_Novak [wikipedia.org]
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?
That's the ironic part. Wikileaks is outside the US and its laws, but NYT is inside the US and can be prosecuted under existing US laws. That the US govt is purusing Julian and not NYT is indeed hypocritical.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've hit it exactly on the head, and no-one seems to be mentioning this.
NYT and the other US organizations are protected because of the rights enumerated to US citizens by the constitution. Wikileaks, as a foreign entity, has no such protections guaranteed. In this regards, it is not hypocritical at all.
But I guess its easier to be inflammatory and just say the US government is attacking the free press.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Section 798 deals with the disclosure of information. The information was already disclosed, however. So where is the problem?
The wording of the law is "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes". It doesn't really matter how they got it.
The other two deal with national defense. I am not aware that there is any defense-related information in the cables.
The fact that they were classified by the Dept of Defense should be evidence of that. There is information of which the release presents a danger to US troops or national security interests.
On a different note, why should Wikileaks care about US law? It's not like they are under your jurisdiction.
Very true. Again, my point was that it's another redundant US law (that doesn't directly apply to Wikileaks anyw
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...The dissemination of classified US Defense information is STILL ILLEGAL under US law
Does that mean that some of these news sites will be in trouble also?
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree with your assessment. That is the basis of my own criticisms of Wikileaks. Although I would add that there's a difference between criticism and legal action. I have no problem being critical of Wikileaks (although even here I dislike some of the political grand-standing that's associated with it). But I do have a problem with politicians trying to circumvent law to go after Wikileaks (or craft Constitutional end-runs to give them legal authority).
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Go, tailgunner Joe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.
Recluse (Score:4, Funny)
FTFA:
A well-known recluse
Reclusion: you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Recluse: you're understanding it wrong.
Well-known/fame (being of interest TO society) and recluse ( being disinterested IN society http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recluse [merriam-webster.com] : marked by withdrawal from society) are completely orthogonal.
U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S hasn't actually done anything to wikileaks, I know there's a lot of hysteria around it and the administration are opposed to it because of the embarrassment is causes (and generally makes everyone else's work much harder to do now) but there's really nothing in the leaks that point or show any wrong doing. All it shows in the internal back and forth of the inner workings of the government, as far as spying on diplomats so what? everyone spies.. and believe it or not it's in the best interest of YOUR
Re: (Score:3)
I was under the impression that an elected representative and employee of the government, while representing the government, entered into communication with the host of Wikileaks and requested that they no longer host Wikileaks. If that's an incorrect impression, please let me know which points are in error. Because as it looks to the public, the US government has taken direct action to harm Wikileaks.
The government has vast resources (Score:3, Interesting)
Most Wikileaks supporters are naive and don't understand the imaginably vast resources of the US Government. They also underestimate the ruthlessness of the US Government.
To understand an individual would have to know the history of COINTELPRO. An individual would have to also talk to people who are being gangstalked today or who have been targeted individuals in the recent past to know that the Government is fully capable of covert psychological torture and entrapment. The rape charge, everything Assange a
Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (Score:4, Insightful)
I am concerned that if the US makes it a crime to publish classified information obtained from sources, it will basically end investigative journalism and take the US one step closer to being like Russia or China.
I am not sure if that makes sense. Do you know what "classified" means?
Some degree of government secrecy has always been needed. Government secrecy was as essential during the revolutionary war, as it is today.
No, Virginia, publishing classified information is absolutely not the same as investigative journalism.
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be a crime to reveal information which was improperly classified.
You don't want every private in the military second guessing whether something is properly classified. They have to be punished merely because it was supposed to be classified, or you'll get people releasing things that are properly secrets merely because they don't understand why and think that they won't be punished.
On the other hand, once the information gets out and no one can justify why it was previously classified? You ought to punish the people who classified it, too. And that never seems to happen.
Backlash against AP? (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Why should they? AP is reporting that Wikileaks collaborated with five media outlets, but Associated Press is not one of those five outlets.
They are:
El Pais
Le monde
The Guardian
Der Spiegel
The New York Times
Re:It's not lawmakers you have to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want your life ruined over Wikileaks?
Let's say you're right. The government conspiracies are going to ruin the people who help Wikileaks. Then why are you trying to convince people not to help them? Better that they fight the good fight and some of them get taken down by The Man than that we all continue to live as serfs, no? You've pretty much established that you're more afraid of the CIA than you are brave enough to stand up for what's right; the least you could do is not try to convince other people to be cowards.
Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Press coverage today is more favorable to Wikileaks.
There's even talk that Assange might be Time's "Man of the Year".
Also, there are now 74 mirrors of Wikileaks. [twitlonger.com]
Re:Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Concerning Assange being "Person of the Year" (it's PC nowadays): duh. Who has had a greater impact on the world than Assange throughout the last year? The other top candidate is LeBron James.
The "Person of the Year" has been real stupid for the last decade. In 2006 it was "You," 2005 "The Good Samaritans" (represented by Bono and Bill Gates), in 2003 it was "The American Solider," and in 2002, ironically enough it was "The Whistleblowers" (the Enron mess). 2001's selection of Rudy Giuliani was pretty piss-poor as well. Person of New York, sure. Person of the Year? Please. That was Osama bin Laden. All in all the "Person of the Year" was accurate to Time's description (having the most impact globally) about 50% of the time the last decade. It would be just like them to select LeBron James (who, ironically, said it would be a "great honor," obviously not understanding that it's not necessarily an honor at all: Putin, Arafat, Hitler, Stalin, ect.).
Other past selections that reek of sentimentality/fail the basic criteria of being a person: "The American Fighting Man," "Scientists," "Baby Boomers," "Middle Americans," "American Women," "The Computer," and "The Endangered Earth." Some other media outlet should do the Man of the Year thing. Time has sucked at it for years.
Yeah, that kind of went off-topic. Oops.
Because the media is so trustworthy... (Score:3)
And the fact that the major media outlets will make WAY more money if they are able to cover the released information as a number of stories over a longer period rather than all at once has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to know how the Feds are going to handle this situation just look at how they handled it in the 60s. The church committee report details what the feds could do in the 1960s. Joel Byran Harris is an ordinary individual who pissed off a high level bank executive in the 1990s and he has been subject to a constant harassment and psychological operation ever since.
Here are the links for anyone who thinks I'm full of it.
http://www.jbhfile.com/index.html [jbhfile.com] [jbhfile.com] and http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm [icdc.com] [icdc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The website you linked to is his own website, made to document his "assault" by federal/corporate harassers. So far he hasn't presented a bit of printed, photographic or video evidence, and refers mysteriously to a crime he committed at age 17 without ever explaining (so far) what that crime is.
Let's look at a quote from the site:
"Furthermore, I began to be witness to a number of regularl
Re: (Score:3)
Dude you are acting like a narc.
See? This is what the government wants and why Wikileaks will never work. We don't know who is and who isn't a narc.
Re:Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (Score:4, Interesting)
You see though how ordinary HR people are just as fucked up in this particular case:
From the first link:
"I answered no, but also made a note for a verbal qualification as I did have a transgression on my record, from when I was 17 years old and for which I was never convicted of any crime; I was sure this incident would turn up in any public record background check and so I simply mentioned it.
As it turns out, upon hearing that I had a felony charge on my record, albeit without any subsequent conviction, HR immediately had a genuine grade-A freak out, called security and had me escorted from the building!"
Somebody was covering his ass, and then the thing started rolling once FDIC got involved. It kind of makes sense that banks would like to employ higher standards, but on the other hand he doesn't have to mention anything from before he was 18 years old.
When I stayed in the US I always had this feeling that people were terribly paranoid, I wonder how your society turned out that way. I mean you would like to blame the guy who keeps on harassing the poor SOB now but I would also blame HR for their reaction, they could have behaved far saner even though they have a tough job of predicting peoples future behaviour.
They want to publish only about 100 of 250000... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really interesting. From TFA: "The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction."
Well, this is mostly very boring stuff. Still, having only a handful of newspapers and some journalists try to find something interesting in this large pile of documents means that there will be gems that will not be found. These cables go back to 1966 and there must be very interesting details in there about things that just aren't on the radar for these journalists.
I'm really looking forward to Wikileaks publishing all of this.
Re:They want to publish only about 100 of 250000.. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
There's little question the AP and other press sources wouldn't have published anything like the volume of information Wikileaks has. Right now they are acting as a restraint rather than an enabler and it's likely the government will see them as an ally trying to bring a troublesome organization under control. I don't think that's the role the press is supposed to have, but they have decided that for whatever reasons they must make decisions about what the public should see rather than maximizing transparency and reporting simple facts.
They don't have a choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't help the government they too can be charged with rape, pedophilia, or something heinous. Their career as a journalist can be ended with a phonecall, their marriage can be ended with a phonecall, do you understand the amount of power the spy agencies have? One phonecall and a life can be destroyed.
Assange might be willing to take a rape charge with a straight face and stiff upper lip but most Americans are cowardly and want to save their asses.
Afghan War Logs (Score:5, Interesting)
were far more damaging to the US govt than the State Department leaks have been so far.
The problem I think is the bank leaks. I suspect they will be on the same par as the other leaks, but banks being banks, the attacks from the establishment will be far greater in force.
Isn't WikiLeaks -a- media organization? (Score:4, Interesting)
They seem to have all the same functions as the free press, albiet without any hollywood gossip or corporate owners.
Is there some legal definition which excludes WikiLeaks from being called a media organization?
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who are close to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. The people donating money to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. By a government that will stop at nothing to stop Julian Assange.
This means informants. This means entrapment. This means torture. This means psychological operations. This means black ops, false flags, black bag, honey trap operations.
This means ruined marriages, ruined careers, mysterious illnesses, mysterious criminal charges like tax evasion to further drain financial resources, psychiatric diagnosis from professionals like paranoid schizophrenia, ruined friendships, destroyed reputation, being labeled a pedophile, rapist, snitch/informant, or being entrapped / locked in prison and then being labeled any of these things.
The Government will do everything short of kill you. They'll try to make you kill yourself with psychological operations. They'll try to manipulate other people into killing you with rumors, smears, and character assassination, and they'll keep you from being able to make any money by lawsuits, blacklists, etc.
Internet war is just war. It's not something that geeks do on the internet with DDOS. It's when lives are permanently destroyed in the real world by blackmail, extortion, manipulation, humiliation, etc.
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that supporting Wikileaks in any capacity right now is one of the more dangerous things we can do. I have made small donations, so I'm probably under the Witch Hunt radar for now, but I really wonder how surprised I would be to have Feds knocking on my door over the holidays. The US government has acted more like North Korea than I ever would have expected and I think it has taken many by surprise. This just means that the US government will do some serious damage before the people en masse get a clue and try to stop it.
The one thing that I hope comes from all of this damage is that the US government and military stop abusing their ability to classify information.
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that supporting Wikileaks in any capacity right now is one of the more dangerous things we can do. I have made small donations, so I'm probably under the Witch Hunt radar for now, but I really wonder how surprised I would be to have Feds knocking on my door over the holidays. The US government has acted more like North Korea than I ever would have expected and I think it has taken many by surprise. This just means that the US government will do some serious damage before the people en masse get a clue and try to stop it.
The one thing that I hope comes from all of this damage is that the US government and military stop abusing their ability to classify information.
When the US government acted like this to black people, or communists, or white supremacists, or muslims, nobody paid any attention because it wasn't happening to them.
Now you see how ruthless the government is because their attention is directed toward you. The way to deal with government is to always stay on their good side.
The less attention they have on you generally the better off you are. When you associate with certain networks of people they don't like, even if you just donate a dollar, you'll be put on the radar and it's impossible to get off once you get put on it.
Depending on how smart you are, what your capabilities are, and how close you are to who they want, they'll use unlimited resources to threaten you to make you an informant. If you disagree and refuse to inform on your brother, they'll charge you with some crime like possession of child pornography, possession of drugs, a sex crime, they'll find something to convict you with just to have something to put you under their total control.
Once you are behind bars they'll have their informants leak out how you are a snitch, informant, child molesting pedophile, and leave you to fend for yourself against prison Nazi's and street thugs who hate your kind. You think I'm lying? Look at this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/04/AR2010120403710.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you see how ruthless the [bully] is because their attention is directed toward you. The way to deal with [bullies] is to always stay on their good side. The less attention they have on you generally the better off you are. When you associate with certain networks of people they don't like, even if you just donate a dollar, you'll be put on the radar and it's impossible to get off once you get put on it.
My, aren't you the submissive little bitch... stand up for your rights. There is more of us than there are of them, if we stick to our principles and refuse to give up, we get to keep our freedoms. If you kneel down, you'll get whipped.
Read up on Tank Man (Score:3)
Yeah, you stand up for your rights... I will be right behind you... around the block. But you go and stand in front of a tank.
A pistol can hold say six rounds. Want to bet I can make a dozen people do what I want with it? Are YOU going to be the one to take the bullet?
Thought not.
THAT is how the system works. The right has been working very hard at making it impossible (read inconvenient) for people to protest. No unions, so no strikes because if you do, you can't make the car payments and bye bye SUV.
T
Re: (Score:3)
Please go back on your meds. The Wikileaks core team runs great risk, but nobody will be going after their supporters. The only risk I feel I'm facing personally is my donation not reaching it's intended target. Fuck it. It's only money.
This is a time to show a straight spine, not to be so cowardly that you refrain from taking simple relatively safe actions such as donating money (once a trustworthy bank is found,) mirroring the site or seeding the torrents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is it?
What an interesting strategy you've outlined here. If a person wants to have non-consensual sex with 14-year olds, all they have to do is "leak" some documents and then, regardless of their known history, they're automatically free of suspicion when it comes to whatever crimes they happen to engage in.
Personally, if I were you, I'd get out of the house more. Read the newspaper. Get involved in your local politics. Make some friends. Because this whole recluse bit is really fucking up your world view.
My world view is that Julian Assange and his supporters are enemies of the USA and are soon going to be treated that way. I'm seeing the machinery in motion. But if you know something I don't about the US government because you have friends in high places why don't you enlighten me, because from what I know about the US government (at least the black ops agency types),
They are completely ruthless. They have no respect for human rights. They will do anything to get information including torture. They'll entr
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange may not consider the US his enemy, but the US government surely considers him an enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Many people calling for and the government actually doing are two completely different things. It's bullshit to hold the government responsible for the random comments of random bloggers and media personalities.
I suspect that Amazon evicting wikileaks was as much due to the DDOS as to anything that Leiberman had to say. Assange bitching about Amazon refusing their business is no different than you bitching about not being able to get insurance after you've burned your house down. (You do know that wl was ho
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
The biases of Slashdot's editors and readers are numerous as well as obvious. Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc. Why are you surprised that they show a bias about Wikileaks too?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hold on, this story is news because WikiLeaks requested the U.S. government help them do exactly what they are now accused of retaining media outlets help them to do.
The U.S. government declined to assist. This is major news. Access to outside parties will continue to increase so long as the U.S. refuses to own this situation and assist in the preparation of these documents for dissemination.
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the US government declined to assist. "Hi, we just got a whole bunch of classified documents you'd rather us not have, and we'd like to publish them. Want to help us redact them?" Any answer the government gives other than "publish nothing" is basically approving Wikileaks publishing leaked documents.
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:4, Funny)
When the barn door is swinging open and the pigs have fled don't turn your nose up at offers of getting bacon returned to you simply because accepting it would imply approving people eating your escaped pigs.
Take what you can get and accept that you should have locked the barn door because you're never catching those pigs no matter how much you scream and stamp your feet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think they do -- I think most /.'s support legal action against the guy who, in this analogy, purposefully opened the barn door. The debate's over what to do once the pigs are out -- they could have gone to anyone, including foreign governments, and they could have gone there secretly, and they could have gone to someone who would release them instantly without any redaction or offer to work with the government. The only improvement you could reasonably ask for is not to release stuff at all. Anything else would have been worse than the current situation. But the 'enabler' concept comes in because WikiLeaks didn't just happen across stray pigs (to come back to the analogy), they had publicly stated they would take them in and redistribute them, if anyone should provide them. But that's nothing new -- the rest of the media's been doing that all along. It's their business. In fact, you can be somewhat thankful that this went to a sort of neutral third party, not directly to one particular media outlet, who would have had control over the spin of stories coming out. Here, you've got several independent eyes looking at it. So now you're talking about possibly the best kind of enabler, considering who else is out there. This really seems like the lesser of all evils, considering the barn doors aren't locked tight enough.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the analogy has other twists to it.
1) The farmer is supposed to be upholding a kosher (or at least kosher-like) dietary practice.
2) Is raising the pigs in secret.
3) Has forbidden ANYONE but specially selected farm hands to go near the barn.
4) swears that there is no porcine meat at all in the food he brings to the bar-mitsvah.
What wikileaks has done is shown that
1) The farmer is a hypocritical liar.
2) Is raising pigs in secret, (See look, here's a pig he raised!)
3) Has snuck into the barn, thr
Re: (Score:3)
When you have stolen a bunch of pigs, and then a third party acquires them and plans on returning them to the people who own them, you can either take some of the bacon when it i
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point. The answer 'publish nothing' is not recognized data-war tender. The U.S. is clearly hoping for meat space developments to solve this situation.
Otherwise they would have a strategy that involved dealing with the data on the table.
The Egyptians have apparently been saying this for years. The U.S. will enter into new theaters of combat with no concern for the opinion of established actors in the arena. Instead they listen with half an ear, then return to telling the established actors what the U.S. wants them to do.
The net result here is that WikiLeaks gets to start doling out National Security level assignments and drawing up the game plan. Currently Assange is only a few pieces short of being able support a cabinet, storm Sealand, and demand U.N. recognition of sovereignty. All because we are forcing his organization to grow up into a full fledged Intel agency and polarizing other sovereigns into his camp.
If anyone is worried about a stateless future ruled by paramilitary actors start taking notes. The U.S. government appears to be hellbent on making that future a reality.
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.
You could probably combine those into a single "pro-freedom" or "pro-individual rights".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, then don't read Politics stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But...but...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit trumps ideology any day.
Profit IS ideology.
Re:But...but...but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you feel the media are Democrat shills when the Republicans are in power, everything's fine.
If you feel the media are Republican shills when the Democrats are in power, everything's fine.
The media lie and the government lies. As long as they tell different lies, democracy is working.
You should watch out, though, if they start telling the same lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it make you happy and delighted that your enemies feel they must speak anonymously?
What saddens ME is that some regard people of a different political persuation "enemies". Extreme political polarization, fed by talking-head whackos, makes people totally lose grip on reality and regard every single thought from the other side as wrong/facist/treasonous/whatever, even if they themselves held that position before.