Wikileaks Suspends Publishing Of Cables Due To "Financial Blockade" 316
lee1 writes "Wikileaks has had to cease publishing classified files due to what the organization calls a 'blockade by US-based finance companies' that, according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has 'destroyed 95% of our revenue.' Assange also opined that 'A handful of US finance companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket.' According to Assange the group was taking 'pre-litigation action' against the financial blockade in Iceland, Denmark, the UK, Brussels, the United States, and Australia. They have also filed an anti-trust complaint with the European Commission."
BoA Leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BoA Leaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up - Now is the time to publish any and all of the leaks they have on financial institutions. Fight back!
He can't. His stash of information is like a gun with one bullet. He can shoot, but if he doesn't kill his enemy dead then he's finished--and he's facing multiple enemies. So he's dangerous only as long as he doesn't pull the trigger and I seriously doubt that he's got any information that could neutralize his opponents. Embarrass, yes; neutralize, no. But then the banks would just be even more pissed off and, with no fear of further embarassment, would strangle him and Wikileaks financially until he's home
Re:BoA Leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
He can't. His stash of information is like a gun with one bullet. He can shoot, but if he doesn't kill his enemy dead then he's finished--and he's facing multiple enemies. So he's dangerous only as long as he doesn't pull the trigger
He was finished as soon as he started pulling shit like 'insurance policies' and scheduled weekly leaks out of his ass. Rather than being a paragon of honesty and open deliberation he's chosen to showboat, counter-extort, obfuscate, and generally do everything possible to start a personal Cold War between him and the entire western world.
In fact, the Cold War is an extremely apt analogy. He's basically saying exactly what the US and Soviets said about each other: "If I'm doing anything bad it's because I absolutely have to or they'll annihilate me in an instant, and anyway they started it and they're doing ten times worse!"
It may be perfectly true that wikileaks can't survive any other way, but if this is how they're going to operate then they're effectively no more than an independent intelligence agency, minus the torturing. The CIA isn't exactly a wonderful, admirable organization, even if you believe it has to exist, and neither is wikileaks.
Put another way, a necessary evil is still evil.
Re: (Score:3)
What a pile of horseshit. They already tried the "releasing everything" model, and rather than dig though the information, the media yawned. So now the release a few cab
It is not so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The corporate media and the fickle public will NEVER digest a huge leak -- it has to be slowly leaked out over time so if we hear anything we hear the SAME bit of leak information at the same time everywhere and not too much that it gets skipped over.
If you dump it all out on a friday, you'll only hear about some diplomat screwing some presidents wife for the next few weeks and maybe a couple things the station doesn't mind reporting. Then the whole thing dies down and they don't talk about the rest of it anymore. Something like that happens all the time; especially on friday media dumps. (most people don't read the paper; tv, radio are not watched friday night or much on the weekend either.)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically what you're saying is they have to manipulate it into something other than what it is for people to care?
Re: (Score:2)
no, your way off. (Score:2)
People to care? people are ignorant. You can't care if you do not know. The whole issue is INFORMING people in a system which fails time after time to properly inform the public. WTF? How can you think that gaming the system to INFORM is turning it into something other than what it is??
Often it requires DEPTH to understand it and get properly upset about it. If the corruption leaks for Tunisia were simple short headlines about US corrupting their government, it may not be enough to motivate people alread
Re:It is not so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why I say Western "democracies" are doomed. A combination of carefully nurtured apathy and misdirection onto utter nonsense (sporting events, "reality" shows etc) and a coordinared effort by the oligarchy-controlled "free press" has pretty much irreversibly poisoned the whole thing to the point that only a major shock would snap the populace out of it. And the powers that be are doing everything possible to make sure that even by then it will be too late.
And if you do not believe me, just look at the blatant violations of the most basic clauses of the US Constitution (the ones that got the Founding Fathers incited to revolution in the first place) by the US government and the accompanying lack of any reaction whatsoever from the dazed public....
In Jefferson's time blood would be flowing in the streets if such a thing was tried. Today there is some twitching about to find the remote and change the channel ... ooh, the Bumville Asshats are playing the Barnburg Jackasses for the Stupid Cup! Who cares about all that concentration of money and power thing!
Better yet, not only there is near total apathy but a slew of apologists come out sneering dismissively to defend the indefensible as "necessary measures" or "its all not so bad compared to North Korea" etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The corporate media and the fickle public will NEVER digest a huge leak -- it has to be slowly leaked out over time so if we hear anything we hear the SAME bit of leak information at the same time everywhere and not too much that it gets skipped over.
The West Wing TV show even had an episode called "Take Out The Trash Day" 11 years ago about dumping a bunch of stories out at the same time so reporters have less "column inches" for them.
While "column inches" is now antiquated, it still translates into reporting hours.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/22/wikileaks_data_lost/ [theregister.co.uk]
He was #2 in the organization and was heavily trusted. When manipulating non-anonymized data, you have to find a balance between redundancy of backups and protection of sources. Keeping this balance when #1 is in jail and #2 is a traitor is really difficult.
What we should all do in light of t
Re: (Score:2)
$3.5 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
WikiLeaks would need $3.5 mln over the next 12 months to maintain its current levels of operations, he said.
Either they've signed up for the world's most expensive hosting plan, or Assange and his friends are running up quite a nightclub tab.
Re:$3.5 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
$3.5 million is a lot of money if you live in your mom's basement and pay no rent.
Re:$3.5 million? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd bet the staff is more like 4 lawyers at 800k and 2 employees working pro bono.
Re:$3.5 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how that's not open to the public. Why don't they practice what they preach, and let everyone see everything about Wikileaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that part of the reason Open Leaks formed?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not cheap hosting a site so politically incorrect that every government and corporation with its reputation on the line will fight by fair or foul to get it shut down.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for a few government parties that are willing to host it free of charge for you ...
If you can't beat 'em, starve 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
With the U.S. government now controlling all the major credit card companies and banks, I guess they really are the world emperors and overlords. And I, for one, would like to welcome our new Yank overlords.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, starve 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was the corporations that control the government? I guess we can switch narratives whenever it's convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it mostly is. But that isn't to say that the corporations don't sometimes cooperate with the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also heard many times that the Chinese now own all our major banks or some such.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes...
Re:If you can't beat 'em, starve 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It does if a powerful government with guns that wants to fight over it says it does.
There's a reason you don't piss off 800 pound gorillas you know.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That "solely" you refer to is illegal activity, which they would be complicit in if they funded or even allowed funding, knowing its illegality. It has nothing to do with 'liking'.
It's a lot like asking mom and dad for some money and then not telling them you're buying pot. If they find out, they'll quit.
"i guess i should call you an imbecile now..."
You might want to reconsider.
Finance companies shouldn't run the media (Score:5, Interesting)
It's weird that the financial companies can control the media in such a way.
I thought that credit card companies had some legal obligation to transfer money from A to B, unless the money was actually criminal money? But last time I checked, Assange was accused (not convicted) of rape. And the Wikileaks organization as a whole wasn't accused of anything in a legal court. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that credit card companies had some legal obligation to transfer money from A to B, unless the money was actually criminal money? But last time I checked, Assange was accused (not convicted) of rape. And the Wikileaks organization as a whole wasn't accused of anything in a legal court. Or am I missing something?
Yeah, you're missing the part where the corporations have an obligation to transfer money to lawmakers for the sake of "national security".
Finance companies control legislation. (Score:5, Interesting)
When a powerful multinational corporation does something that's not legal, it will be made legal afterwards.
Example #1: Citibank bought Travelers, knowingly violating the Glass-Steagal act. Result, Glass-Steagal was repealed (Joe Biden voting against, oddly enough) with the current, totally predictable results.
Example #2: Telcos performed warrantless wiretaps for the Bush administration without proper authorization. They (hilariously) claimed to be doing so out of patriotism, but when the FBI missed a billing cycle the telcos suddenly stopped having this vaunted "patriotism" that somehow justified trampling US laws. Result, congress granted telcos immunity from prosecution (both McCain and Obama rushing back to DC from the campaign trail to cast votes in favor).
They do what they want, and then they buy enough government to make it legal. The only time there is any issue is when two zaibatsus have conflicting goals - the people don't matter any more, which is what OWS is about.
Re: (Score:2)
It is weird. What is stopping Wikileaks from publishing? All it takes is an Internet connection somewhere.
This isn't about principle or money. It's about Assange fighting for the Wikileaks brand name.
Re:Finance companies shouldn't run the media (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about principle or money. It's about Assange fighting for the Wikileaks brand name.
No, it's about money. It's Assange saying "if you want to see the leaked documents from xxxx, I need my pound of flesh." It's how they do fund raising.
If it was about getting the information to the public, they'd simply post a torrent. If it was about Wikileaks getting credit they could just put banner files in the archives like the warez groups do. But that doesn't give Assange money to fly around the world or support his agendas.
This is Assange promoting Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I think the guy is an ass, I think the whole high profile self promotion thing is somewhat necessary, along with the sensationalism and "we'll be releasing this stuff in x months" stuff. The profile makes it hard to get rid of, the sensationalism ensures it gets some attention (whether this is a good thing or not is largely a personal opinion). The profile also serves to let people know they have a place to send their stuff.. versus the guy posting torrents.. how do you get in touch with him?
Re: (Score:2)
...last time I checked, Assange was accused (not convicted) of rape.
He was accused and then acquitted. The extradition is for interrogation purposes.
not yet (Score:2)
I have got an impression that Wikileaks haven't reach yet the status of al-Qa'ida, Taliban or al-Shabaab, but they pretty close to that in the ranks of Iran and Syria.
If I were Julian I would keep my movements to heavily populated areas avoiding shires of England.
They published too much (Score:3)
The original goal of Wikileaks was to publish documents where secrecy were misused to hide criminal acts. By releasing everything indiscriminately they took upon themselves a load they can not bear.
Wait a second.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You threaten to publish the secret, evil, nefarious ways of financial institutions, claim to have a hard drive full of incriminating information, and now these same financial institutions now won't deal with you?
Why... I never. How demonic indeed!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- One) Yes you're right. Why should they deal with him?!?!
- Two) I'm worried that secret, evil, nefarious people are in control. If only we had a way to undermine them and make it a better world.
- Three) Why are there no NON-secret, evil, nefarious people in power that he can turn to?
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Informative)
The 'financial blockade' predates the threat to publish stuff about Bank of America. When the leaks about Iraq were published, the US government, with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) leading the way, worked with PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and other financial institutions to cut off funding that went through any US-based corporation.
Note that Wikileaks had not (and still hasn't) done anything illegal in the United States: Publishing classified information that was handed to you is protected under the First Amendment, as decided in the Pentagon Papers case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that Wikileaks had not (and still hasn't) done anything illegal in the United States
Well, good for them that legality is all that matters and public opinion has nothing to do with it.
Their behavior is what fucked them over, not any government. They made it clear they wanted attention and money, not to show the injustices done in the world. What they are doing is nothing like the Pentagon Papers.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, good for them that legality is all that matters and public opinion has nothing to do with it.
When it comes to the actions of the US government, legality is supposed to be what matters.
They made it clear they wanted attention and money, not to show the injustices done in the world.
If I had information that suggested that powerful people were committing heinous crimes and getting away with it, I'd want that information spread far and wide. That would necessarily entail having attention, and would require funding. This is all regardless of whether Julian Assange is a jerk who two-timed a couple of Swedish gals.
BTC? Stamps? Gift Cards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Take bitcoins to transfer cash. Doesn't seem overly complicated. I can turn $50 into BTC without much time or effort, send it to them, and they can turn it into euros or whatever they need with little effort.
Don't they have a postal mail address where they can accept innumerable forms of psuedo-currency like gift cards, postal stamps, etc?
Handling $3.5 million might be a bit labor intensive, maybe they need a slightly smaller budget?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this may be the first relevant BitCoin post I've seen here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the Bitcoin exchange
What in the world are you talking about? The ecosystem is a lot bigger than one exchange. Multiple exchanges, and anyone can accept private transactions. I'm not entirely certain what Julian plans to do with 3.5 million but presumably at least some small amount can be directly paid for via BTC. Certainly webhosting, stuff like that.
Also most activity is quite psuedo-anonymous. Thought experiment: Julian decides to exchange 3.5 million per day, with a 5000 limit, thats a perl script running 700 times c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why anyone using Bitcoin seriously at the moment should use an exchange to instant sell their Coins for a more stable currency, and buy Bitcoins only exactly when they want to transfer them.
Holding Bitcoins is for speculators.
Easy solution (Score:2, Funny)
Pay 'em in Bitcoins.
Torrents? (Score:3)
Isn't that pretty much free?
Quite. This is how politics is shaped. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why all the representative democracies on the planet are failing. Because the only ones that can be seen and elected, are those that the powerful few private interests allow people to see.
Wikileaks has been a prime example that exhibited how crooked our media/finance system, and how they are ab
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of companies can make sure that you get the media attention, or not. a handful of other companies can decide whether you get the funds to be able to get the media attention, or not. So it goes.
Yea, that was true right up until the Internet got popular. No longer is it true, you can find safe harbor somewhere to post just about anything, and with a little effort you can probably even find someone else to pay for it.
Wikileaks has been a prime example that exhibited how crooked people can be while flying a flag of good intentions. Do you REALLY think they couldn't publish all this shit in a torrent and solve all of their hosting problems? If you do, you're a moron ... oh wait, too late, already f
Re: (Score:2)
you can find safe harbor somewhere to post just about anything, and with a little effort you can probably even find someone else to pay for it.
You can? It seems like TPB's had a relatively hard time finding a safe harbor. I'm amazed that Wikileaks has been able to maintain a net connection.
No one can operate at the level without allies (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikileaks has taken on the two most powerful kinds of organisations in the world, the pillars of the international political system and the global marketplace. It directly damaged the interests of the government of the world most powerful sovereign state (still the USA) and made noises about hurting corporate financial institutions. That's a tall order for any organisation.
Wikileaks put itself in a particularly hard spot because it hasn't played well with others. It took an 'our way or the highway' approach to disclosure. It also released information that no one was asking for, so it didn't make allies with its disclosures. Moreover, it didn't support or enable calls for specific kinds of disclosure from existing organisation. Now it's isolated and atrophying because no one can operate at that level without allies for long.
Don't worry if they win (Score:2)
the "Conservative" SCOTUS will strike it down.
So, are Wikileaks admitting defeat or greed? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Man cut the money hose to stop us leaking, so we'll show him... why, by golly, we'll not leak anything until we get more money in our pockets.
Yes, well done, very convincing.
Action (Score:2)
We call that voting with your money. Perfectly moral and legal.
Wait (Score:2)
Cause and Effect (Score:2)
It's called cause and effect.
Note that these are paraphrases:
Assange 2010: "I've got secret documents from two US-based financial organizations that I may give to the press."
Assange 2011: "We don't have enough money to release any more documented due to a blockade by US-based financial organizations."
Duh, what did you think would happen?
Sounds like whinging but at least it's something (Score:3)
Wikileaks wikileaks, is this all people hear can they consider any other method? If I was cynical I'd say that Wikileaks was setup or subverted to discourage people leaking, to change people's perception online. It sounds like whinging but it's good to see attention given to the financial system and to have it so clear.
There's Freenet, eepsites, tor hosted sites and Bitcoin. No need for Wikileaks, post direct and then leak.
Perhaps this can help OccupyWallstreet people to stop whinging and start doing, starting by takening a long hard look inside ones own wallet.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
People manage to distribute petabytes of illegal material daily on bittorrent. Assange can't find a way to distribute megabytes?
The real story is that Assange can't make a dime off seeding a few torrents, and so he's not interested.
Anarchy (Score:2)
I like what wikileaks did in the cables situation. It actually improved my attitude about the US was doing in demonstrating that US diplomats were in fact acting the way they had claimed to be. I like their other leaks...
But wikileaks has constantly been an anti-establishment, essentially criminal enterprise which is anarchist. Why would they expect governments to intervene against US banks on their behalf?
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But their objective has never been to make as much money as possible, so it is wrong to say that they have made mistakes because something did not turn out as financially good for them.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:4, Interesting)
Public opinion swung hard against Wikileaks after the accidental release of the un-redacted cables. That leak put many people in harm's way, including a lot of people trying to help overthrow oppressive regimes or criminal enterprises. If we are able to ask "who watchers the watchers?" we have to ask "who watches the watchers of the watchers?" and the answer is that, in Wikileaks' case, big problems of credibility exist.
And, still, his point is valid. It's not public opinion that's starving Wikileaks at the moment, it's small number of big finance companies that have cut them off. What he is asserting is that financial blockade is akin to setting up barriers at polling places - what remains to be seen is if the world will agree with him.
I suspect the majority popular vote would support Assange's assertion (financial blockade should not be used to suppress free speech), but the final decision will be against him.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Insightful)
Before people will be able to render an opinion, they need to also face an uncomfortable truth: That the people who control the world's money also have a non-impartial agenda which they will assert when it suits them to do so.
This isn't a "political" issue as much as it is a personal one. Note that the flow of money to Wikileaks was not inhibited until they decided to leak things about banks. That's when they started to choke Wikileaks' money flow.
After the people are made to recognize this fact, that's when they can make an opinion about whether this is good or bad.
The rulers of the world are exposing themselves through their actions. And the activities of late are showing who controls the government... hint: it's not the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the flow of money to Wikileaks was not inhibited until they decided to leak things about banks.
Agreed. Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union == the U.S. government.
the heavy stones of moral blindness (Score:3)
Cause and effect proclamations about cloak and dagger are mostly just a Rorschach over eigenvalues of paranoia.
You're effectively asserting that if he hadn't pissed off the banks, the money would not have been choked off, which is by no means clear. I think major banks, as institutions founded on secrecy and power, would be remarkably obtuse to take no alarm long before the BoA cross-hairs made them front line participants.
I will concede that anger does tend to cut through institutional inertia. When the
Re: (Score:3)
The whole world is waking up to the control and influence relationship that the banks and wall street have over government. Happen to notice the occupy movement is going global, not just US nation-wide?
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the flow of money to Wikileaks was not inhibited until they decided to leak things about banks. That's when they started to choke Wikileaks' money flow.
Sorry, can you show me what Wikileaks decided to leak about the banks? I'm pretty sure Wikileaks has not released anything like you think. You are probably getting caught up in the five-month-long claims from Julian Assange that there was going to be a bombshell Wikileaks release about Bank of America, and then......... nothing. If I'm wrong, then mod me down... but otherwise, don't let that guy sit at Score:4, Insightful for a silly conspiracy post.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering it was a rogue newspaper bungling the encryption key and forcing their hand so that the bad guys weren't the only ones that had access, I very much doubt the egg on Wikileaks's face was truly their own.
Someone fucked up, wikileaks got blamed for making the best of a bad situation, and some secret operative somewhere in the guardian is probably giving the agency he works for a jolly laugh of "eeeeeeeeggcellent"
Intelligence networks have been trying like clockwork to get Wikileaks shut down ever since their parent governments started getting embarrassed by the leaks.
Infiltrating a news organization and spilling an already compromised key for the sole purpose of embarrassing and discrediting wikileaks would be very useful and if that's what really happened I would not be the least bit surprised.
Oh, and if I suddenly stop posting on slashdot...feel free to get even more suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not, because everything you said is partisan, and your own opinion, and many of us don't see it this way.
Still, you keep asserting your world view is everyone's world view if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/ [salon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Factual error: the US Soldier who carried one of the wounded children away (visible in long version of the video!) later identified himself and went public with this fact.
Now, a theoretical situation: You are a father, with two children in you van, in your home city, which happens to occupied by a foreign army. You come upon a scene of death and mayhem in the middle of your home city, and see a wounded man (you don't know he's a reporter) crawling from the scene. Do you A.) Drive away and not render
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a link to the soldier carrying kids away? Because all the news stories when the incident occurred said there were no kids.
And as a parent, I wouldn't endanger the lives of my kids to aid a stranger.
Re: (Score:2)
The lens pointed at helicopter around the corner looks like Canon 500mm F4. Google it out if you can't tell the differrence between RPG and Canons gray/white professional lenses. (Hint: RPGs are thin, long and have very distinctive conical shaped charge at the end)
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Insightful)
In the first pass, you can see the reporter with the camera in question. And he isn't at the front of the group. They pass around a building and you lose sight of the group for a moment. But before then, you can see it is someone else who reaches the corner of the building first. He is the one who points the object at the helicopter. And what he points is considerably larger than the camera that you see seconds before.
There was only one reporter on the scene. Everyone else in the group was carrying weapons. When the group is shot, the reporter is in the back (not in the front where this object in question was being pointed at the helicopter). No one else was carrying a camera.
When Assange himself was questioned on the matter, he said the object could have in fact been an RPG. Even he didn't dispute that point. His argument was more that the American troops didn't have the right to fire on the van. And while I would agree that is questionable, I don't know you can easily chalk that up to outright murder. The troops didn't open fire without permission. They didn't randomly fire on just anyone. There were armed troops that pointed a weapon at them. If you're seen as aiding the enemy, then you're placing yourselves in danger. It isn't unreasonable for troops to react that way. This is a questionable decision that I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge. But I certainly wouldn't call it murder.
I haven't served in combat. I don't claim to know what it is like. I was in the Marine Corps though. During boot camp they ran us through a fake drill where we were issued orders and told we were shipping off for war. An entire company of Marines (6 platoons of 60-70) sat in a room. Every single one was saying that they didn't want to go to combat. I didn't hear a single voice saying, "man, I just want to kill people!"
Is it possible that individuals sign up during wartime because they do want to shoot people? Certainly. But I don't assume all soldiers are evil, nor that they want to kill people. But I have been told several times over again that all US soldiers are blood-thirsty killers. And I give these guys a little leeway because I don't think most people are asking themselves what they'd really do in a combat situation. Most people here have never had to lay their life on the line for others and don't know what it is to make such decisions.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Informative)
This author must dispute two statements of fact in the above post:
FYI: the un-redacted cable release came from a confluence of several events:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Has Wikileaks ever lied, or provided demonstrably false information?
Yes, they posted a video that was clearly manipulated to the point of not even being close to 'the truth'. I know, I saw both the full version and the edited version, there is no mistake.
The video showed they have an agenda and they'll manipulate facts into lies in order to further their agenda. From that point on, everything else they do and have done is tainted. If you're too stupid to start thinking for yourself, nothing we can do about that, but we're still going to point out that your a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
The video showed they have an agenda
Woopty-do-dah
Prey-tell who doesn't have an agenda? Yourself?
Somehow I think that you believe that the world would have been better off without wikileaks, because they have an agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
I also watched both videos. The manipulation of the video scaled down the time and posted captions, it did not substantively alter the story told. The longer, non-edited video is MUCH harder to follow, and requires a larger time investment to understand. This is a journalistic judgement call. Also, they published BOTH versions of the video, so that anyone who did not trust the edited version, and wished to see the original evidence, could do so. I call 'troll' on you! Are you a sock puppet?
Media Campaign (Score:2)
Seems the Media campaign against got to you, puppet!
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't heard of one single death coming as a direct result of Wikileaks revelations. However, they have brought to light a whole heap of corruption and cover ups. They have done WAY more good than harm (if any harm at all). Personally, I think the people who like power and war just enjoy using that as an excuse to bash Wikileaks. Those in power and money also control the media and try to portray Wikileaks in the worst light possible. Things like Wikileaks just might be the only thing that will save democracy from collapsing on itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a hint:
If the people aren't really in charge, then it's not really a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
noone (Score:2)
these are not watchers, these are observers, and talkers. and what they are talking, is what they are finding that we are specifically and nefariously prevented from finding out - what is done against us behind our backs by powerful corporations and governments.
in this filth-ridden, corrupt times, it is a dire necessity to have such a function in society. and that does not need to be 'watched', but encouraged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amnesty International blasted Assange for repeated leaks where he didn't redact civilian volunteer names, leading to civilian volunteers coming under death threats.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED
WikiLeaks won Amnesty International 2009 Media Award. That's what the organization thinks of the other organization. What did happen, and you're misremembering it the way t was designed to be misremembered, is that one individual that worked for AI made a comment blasting Assange. That individual did not represent the organization. And the death threats were the same hypothetical threats that were U.S. official FUD all along, nothing real.
Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak (Score:5, Informative)
Except it did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?KEYWORDS=julian+assange+rights+groups [wsj.com]
Amnesty International went after Assange in 2010, a year after that award when they learned how he put civilians in danger. And yet in every interview on the matter, Assange insists he did nothing wrong. In this article, he blasts others for being lazy, when he was the lazy one who didn't bother redacting names. And if you bother taking two seconds to Google such matters, you'll find several quotes where he says he won't redact civilian names unless people give him $200,000.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed, that never happened. Poster was repeating a Fox News falsehood.
not a free market however (Score:2)
Financial Mismanagement? (Score:3)
Since all the major credit card companies are based in the United States, they are free to push their national interests through financial attacks.
However this seems an inconvenience, not a death sentence for a political organization. People could send paper checks. Some other group could aggregate online donations and deliver a paper check. Independent groups raise money for a cause and then donate to organizations supporting that cause all the time.
I think Occam's razor would suggest that Wikileaks was financially mismanaged (as in things like the above not embezzlement) or that the Wikileaks organization has been discredited and the donations do
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned bitcoin has been swamped by hackers and techies that swooped in after the feds swooped out.
I trust my bank only because the FDIC and FED are watching it like a hawk. I know human nature.
But I would not trust a bitcoin bank, because as far as being regulated goes it's about as trustworthy as a corporation in EVE Online.
When bitcoins can be protected just as effectively as real cash, give me a call.
Re: (Score:3)
"I trust my bank only because the FDIC and FED are watching it like a hawk."
That's going to do nothing with over 70 trillion in toxic assets being moved by banks into FDIC-backed stuff.
Your account is about to become non-existent once those banks default on all those toxic assets. You won't even have a place to stand in line to get a few paltry dollars - the banks get first dibs on payback.
Which means you need to pull your money out now.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I were inclined to pull my money out where would I put it?
Re: (Score:2)
When that one person left to form openleaks he deleted them off wiki-leaks servers.
Technology is not always the answer (Score:2)
The solution to all of this is very simple, but sadly the general population, and many of the journalists who are paid to corral their thoughts, is even more simple. If half of all the people who follow the Wikileaks account adopted Bitcoin ...
Technology is not always the answer. A far simpler solution is to mail a paper check, either as an individual or a group that raised money (possibly aggregating online donations) for a cause.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really think America is run by the left (Score:3)