Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
from the where's-that-first-amendment dept
With Amazon dumping Wikileaks due to pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, it seems to have only emboldened Lieberman to shred more of the First Amendment he's supposed to be protecting. First, he has continued pressuring other companies to not host Wikileaks content. This has resulted in Tableau Software removing a visualization of Wikileaks data. People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, but because of Lieberman's grandstanding, the company felt the need to remove the chart. Of course, you can still find the damn chart everywhere online, and I'm going to publish it here (Senator, feel free to give me a call about this), because it should be damn obvious that publishing something like this is not revealing any sensitive info. It's all based on the data around the leaked cables, not the cables themselves.
Here's the really ridiculous aspect of all of this, however. In an internet era when all of these details are available from tons of sources and file sharing networks well beyond any single website, going after websites to censor them and making it a crime to report factual information is such an antiquated and pointless move. Senator Lieberman's actions here are like trying to deal with a few bees entering his home by burning it down. Not only is it a massive overreaction that damages some key infrastructure, but it's also unlikely to be even remotely effective.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, data, first amendement, joe lieberman
Companies: amazon, tableau software
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And so it begins...
The avalanche has begun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Lieberman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
I've read no reports of nuclear launch codes, names or locations of agents or spies.
They need to get over it and quit their whining and move on. They should've been smart in the first place but to use discretion and care in what they do and say just like the rest of us.
Whiney overpaid self-serving pricks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You need to do some serious qualifying if you want to start with a premise that astoundingly moronic. As it stands, you've effectively said that if the Times gets reliable word of an upcoming U.S. raid in Afghanistan, they should publish it and the goals of the raid and our soldiers' safety be damned.
There's not a whole lot of difference in that and leaking enough diplomatic documents to severely harm U.S. diplomatic efforts. I mean you do realize that wars happen and people die when diplomacy fails, yeah? I guess that doesn't really matter if you have a chance to sling some mud in the government's eye though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
History repeats itself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: History repeats itself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you name one person whose life has been endangered due to the documents published?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fucking with the efforts of a nation to play nice with others is pretty damned endangering because the alternative is to not play nice with others. But then obviously Julian, and likely most of the people cheering him on, don't really care so long as they get to rake some muck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS
Get OUT!
Mr. Lieberman, I think you're a fuck.
Unlimited two and six year terms is a bloody joke with today's party money.
Too black, too strong.
The human wave of the planet, humanity - WILL overcome. (and it won't be flying a fucking flag)
You protect the heavy pockets, the entire design is for that protection. And you engorge yourselves. That's what you've become, that's what you've done. Go.
( gosh I get so darn frustrated and mad some times .. and stuff )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
Those people are wrong, at least one or the documents was classified to "secret", so by definition it is "sensitive".
All security documents are 'sensitive'. that is why they are classified in the first place..
I really with Mike you would include a little more balance and accuracy.
You come accross as a apoligist for wikileaks, and when you make statements like that, when it is blatently clear a great deal of that leaked information was VERY sensitive.
Just saying "people have pointed out". makes for a exceedinglyh weak argument.
And there is no way you can relate this to anything like normal censorship, its national security.. It is highly sensitive information.,
And it is information that is very damaging to many people when released.
And damaging to people for all the wrongs reasons.
wikileaks should be closed down, and the people running imprisioned.
they are not working for the public or social good, they are working for pure self promotion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hilarity will ensue, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On a side note - just where did "playing nice" come from? If they truly were playing nice they should have no problems at all having their mail exposed? And if they wern't... then by your own argument/logic it makes no difference.
The governments of this world need to negotiate in public, for the public, on behalf of the public, and with the support of the public.... er.... drat forgot my point.
Anyway if they said in the back rooms what they say to the public.... no one would care what leaked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I ignore the flamers, they are just upset because they have no argument against your statements.
Which are 100% correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
"All security documents are 'sensitive'. that is why they are classified in the first place.."
self-referential or whatever....
funny - by classified as an action you must logically allow un-classified to exist also which given the lack of perfection leads directly to the potential to assign a member to the group which does not belong ie: in error hence mis-classified.
oh fuck... well trolled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
Listen carefully: The line you bolded was referring to *the chart* of data. Now, follow along (I know it's difficult)...the chart has no sensitive data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
Are you kidding me?
When the USA played nice with anyone?
Look at how they treated other countries forcing them to take prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for the privilege to see the president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guy, you're an idealist fool. Diplomacy can not be done publicly. Full stop. A large chunk of diplomacy is one country agreeing to ignore the vile shit another is doing in exchange for something more important. Diplomacy is far too ugly for soccer moms to ever approve of what's done in it but it keeps us from all killing each other. The world is not a nice place and you wishing it so isn't going to do a damned thing besides drive you crazy and annoy those of us who know better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what you are saying is that people are stupid and people who are paid to lie, deceive and look the other way are better?
Really?
And you know better? How?
I have been in slums, jungles, traveled the seven seas and the most reasonable people I ever met where mostly simple people, I endured everything from freezing cold, hunger and violence with bullets flying everywhere, what did you do exactly to get an understand of the world?
You wanna know why the American people is celebrating Wikileaks?
Because of that BS of "people who know better". The best times America ever saw was when the government sided with the people how do you explain that away?
I know of politicians and what they do and most of the time I got disgusted to be near them, not that I'm a saint but between them and gansters I see not much difference and you are saying people should trust their public officials blindly?
Are you f'cking crazy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its too late
BTW did you ever really exist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Knockoffs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do I know better? I actually pay attention to the world around me rather than blinding myself by plastering my ideals in front of my eyes.
Should you trust politicians? Fuck no. Absolutely never. You're never going to know their mind. The only thing you can trust are results. You have to take a leap of faith every single time you put someone in power.
You are a damned fine example of someone who most definitely should not know what has to be said and done to deal with some of the most ruthless and powerful people in the world. This leak was piddly, if still quite harmful, shit and you're ready to dance in the streets and burn effigies.
One of these days I hope you'll grow the hell up and join us adults in the real world. You know, the one where our diplomats have to deal with dictators and genocidal fuckwads who lie like they breathe. Until then, I'm done imparting any further wisdom to someone who doesn't want to accept it because it would tarnish their shiny ideals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Though Lieberman seems to be a prime example of a "Stupidity source"
A quick check of Tableau's customer base that use their commercial service will show the real reason why the senator's threats had an effect.
As for the wikileaks cable data being charted... it's not hard to do and any good data mining system would be able to do it [there are a multitude of Open Source Datamining/BI apps that can do it].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guy Rundle, Crikey: The GFC, Wikileaks collide - and the world just shifted
"You can feel the change in the air, read it in every report. The more that the fused political-media-administrative elite try to write it off as 'entertaining anecdote' while at the same time mobilising state power to destroy the organisation, the more they reveal that something has happened. The old process of leaks - a document here and there - only served to reinforce the idea that the state had an unquestionable right to control information, and that there could be no other way to organise society or create law.
That legitimacy has had a fatal crack put it in. The whole question of who should know what has been put into play. There will be reversals, but we're used to those. As I may have mentioned, something is happening."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On your world maybe on mine I rarely have to lie, and although I don't want to know every nasty thing people say about me, when it happens, I don't go ballistic do you?
Do you think high level bureaucrats will go nuts for others calling them names? It is their job to take the abuse, they are trained for that, have you ever been in front of diplomats? I doubt it.
I hope you grow up and join people in the real world too, the one that governments start respecting their citizens and not treating them like children.
Do you really think people don't know that there is bad people out there?
Have you ever had to deal with a dictator? have you ever saw a genocidal fuckwad?
Because I don't think you have done that, if you did you would know that bad people, real bad people only respond to brute force and diplomacy is useless.
Did you see anybody in America asking to dismantle the Army?
You need a reality check dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikileaks is not a US organization and has no patriotic duty to protect US interests at the expense of its enemies. Publishing information about a pending American invasion would put American lives at risk, but it would also certainly save many lives of the invaded nation's soldiers and citizens. Publishing diplomatic cables makes it harder for the US to do diplomacy, but it might be very beneficial for the US's enemies.
So morally, the question is a lot more complex because we don't all have a moral duty to protect the United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lieberman is a threat to democracy
It's Liebarman himself, and the other traitors who side with him, who are a threat to freedom and democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Diplomacy needs secrecy and lying? Scheming and manipulation need secrecy and lying, and those things go far beyond the non-violent conflict resolution that your idea of diplomacy is about. Some secrecy is necessary, but too much secrecy gets innocent people hurt -- alliances between countries are one thing, but connivances are a very different thing.
For example, Wikileaks revealed recently that the US military thought the UK's military was "not up to the task" during the Iraq war. Blair was more than happy to put the UK in a costly war it had no business being in, just because he was being Bush's bitch (problem?). An unjustified war, no less. Perhaps the next time the US decides it wants to invade some random country, the UK won't be so ready to oblige without good reason. Is that really such a bad thing?
So, was Wikileaks wrong in publishing this information? True, a lot of it seems to be gossip, where some lame-brained diplomats are making inappropriate remarks about foreign leaders (whose fault is that?). Between the gossip however, there is important information that could be used to make the world a better place: for example, yesterday Wikileaks published documents that show the US army were using the British airbases in Cyprus for secret missions involving espionage and possibly torture. Is it a good or a bad thing that we know that now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, no one has said any such thing. You made it up.
But beyond that, you're clinging to the myopic, naive view that adversaries rely on media (including Wikileaks) to get their intelligence and that they will be deaf, dumb and blind without it. Of course they don't. They have quite effective means of independently discovering the same information, and they're usually successful. (Consider: what's the price of a low-level diplomatic staff member who has unfettered access to a decent chunk of this and would like to supplement his/her income?) Or consider that the US government's IT infrastructure is apparently run by poorly-trained crack monkeys, is absolutely riddled with security holes at every level and in every agency, and can be readily penetrated by any newbie hacker or script kiddie who reads full-disclosure.
And beyond that: people die for lies every day. They're dying in Iraq and Afghanistan as you read this. Some of them are our soldiers -- dying for lies. Where's your concern for them? Or are you only concerned when someone dies for the truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
even after publication data is still classified...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subject
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
Those people are wrong, at least one or the documents was classified to "secret", so by definition it is "sensitive".
This is one of the top 10 stupidest things I've ever seen written down. I could classify my grocery list as secret but that doesn't actually make it secret or sensitive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Operative word here "play" as in "pretend to be"
As always it is still the evil that you are doing that you wish to conceal - and in the long run it will do you no good because you will be found out.
"Men Loved Darkness Rather Than Light, Because Their Deeds Were Evil" (From the Gospel of St John)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And what if the Times gets info about a forthcoming Taliban raid on the US?
And who set you up as judge over which side is in the right?
OK it may look fairly obvious in this case - but it isn't always so.
Would it have been wrong to warn the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki about those "forthcoming American raids"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
Is there no limit to your stupidity?
Documents are classified by default because the person doing the classification feels safer keeping stuff secret than letting it out and reading the material to find out would be a waste of time (and a security risk). This has the useful side effect of making the important stuff hard to locate in the mass of boring and useless detail.
Most of the important things are only sensitive for a very short period of time.
The military is well aware that keeping long term secrets is impossible and so organises itself accordingly.
How many classified documents have you seen?
wikileaks should be closed down, and the people running imprisioned.
The governments of Iran, China, North Korea and Burma will love you for that. As will the Taliban. Remember Wikileaks provides a safe whistleblowing route for the citzens of those countries also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What does he have to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lieberman? Really????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can our government do more in these areas? Are they setting a good example?
What makes a stronger statement to a dictator, a few high ranking political competitors making some statements or a very large number of people standing together despite what such elites had in mind?
It's tough to attack someone with whom you empathize. And it's great when games are an accessible diversion.
PS: You will also note that most war hawks work hard to drum up war feelings. Then they want to shut free communication down and other forms of competition for information. Behind conflict there is misunderstanding. Understanding comes from truth not from lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called 'access' and you'd be wise to mind that if you're with the press or some piss-ant country that we don't care about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subject
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, you want a qualification? Here's a fucking qualification:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- the motherfucking Constitution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
China was to Google
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is more than one country in the world
Are they going to declare war on the UK when BBC covers a criminalized subject?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have only two things to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment
[ link to this | view in thread ]