Re: Wikileaks redacts and censors, and withholds information..
Yea right, that would be a true statement if wikileaks, had all the information they have available to the public, but on the 250,000 documents he has he is up to about 350 I think.
He also 'redacts' or censors his content, he does not release it all.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, Darryl?
If he didn't redact the files, you'd be complaining that Wikileaks endangers lives by releasing names of informants.
They are steadily going through the stack of the 250000 documents and have news agencies and newspapers help them scan those documents to see which data could be very harmful and endangers lives.
That's why the rhetoric from your precious politicians is so disingenuous. Firstly, Wikileaks asked the DoD to help them go through the documents to redact the names that should remain hidden. The DoD said "no". And now they complain that Wikileaks endangers lives, despite the fact that they don't.
Would you have condemned the Washington Post for the Watergate stories? Or the New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers? After all those were leaked from a classified source as well. And the publishing of those was not deemed a criminal act, the leaking is probably illegal.
But Wikileaks itself did not leak the cables, they only published it.
If Wikileaks were to ever become indicted and convicted of a crime relating these and/or other cables, you might want to take a moment to remember the First Amendement and the freedom of the press, before the judges put those in a shredder.
I didn't mean it as hyperbole. But when senators are asking for the death of an individual because he published leaked documents, things become very scary.
if it's not affecting much in any of the truly secret things the government does, why then are they up in arms like this? What are they afraid so of, that they don't mind stepping on the first amendment for?
Assange a James Bond supervillain? For what? Rape? No, that would make him the weakest Bond villain ever.
For publishing these leaks? He's no more guilty than the New York Times and the Washington Post were (the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Scandal respectively)
Secondly, Wikileaks has yet to do anything that's illegal according to US laws.
So, stating that as your reason to deny or worse close someone's account with your service is weaksauce.
Thirdly, the Paypal account didn't belong to Wikileaks, but to a German not-for-profit foundation, that sympathized with Wikileaks and helped them out with the funding.
Fourthly, the timeline is very suspicious, and it looks as if governmental pressure was used to get EveryDNS, Amazon and Paypal to close anything related to Wikileaks.
Which sounds suspiciously like Stateside censorship to me.
But if the US thinks that they can put this genie back inside the bottle, they've got another thing coming.
More than 300 mirrors and counting, this is like the ending in V for Vendetta, where everyone who didn't side with the government wore a Guy Fawkes' mask.
That insurance file is just that, insurance. Because I'm quite sure that Assange's life isn't safe anymore. By doing this, he makes sure that any opposing factor will not kill him outright. Especially with US public figures demanding his death, that's a handy thing to have, that insurance.
Except Paypal didn't shut down Wikileaks' account, as they didn't have their own account, but the funding via Paypal went through the Wau Holland Stiftung.
A not-for-profit foundation founded in name of Chaos Computer Club co-founder Wau Holland.
As a personal remark: I hate the way the US is behaving at the moment. It's a very scary idea to see a world power act as a petulant 2 year old child, screaming and kicking just to get their way.
hypocrisy is nothing new in politics. It's more to their advantage to complain and spindoctor everything afterwards then actually help Wikileaks. (Calling it treason makes for a nice soundbite, even if it's not true)
There is a third option that you failed to mention, understandable, as it doesn't fit in your argument against Mike.
The LOC could have done nothing. No blocking of Wikileaks (and any of its mirrors) and no blocking of newspapers.
That way they have an air of levelheadedness, acknowledge that the papers are there, instruct the users that they really shouldn't be reading those documents, as they are still classified, and go on about their day.
Re: asanage is the new US hero, for making the US look like morons..
I'm not going to respond to all your points, but this one was the most amusing one of all:
"BTW: Forget wikileaks, it was nice while it lasted, but it no longer exists. world wide by the looks of it."
Wikileaks has, at this moment, more mirror sites all over the world than ANY site in history ever had. It no longer exists? Hardly, there are a lot of people who are *hosting* (not just linking) and frequently updating their copy of the Wikileaks website.
Just to name three: http://wikileaks.nl http://wikileaks.2600nl.net http://www.powned.tv/wikileaks/
1) I'm not sure, it's not exactly on the political agenda right now, but I did not vote for the bozos we currently have in power, I voted for a party that's now in opposition. And I do know that they opposed the war in Iraq (and the Dutch involvement there), for the very same reason as I do, that it was based on a lie.
2) I have no idea whether my country can do anything to stop the US. But that does not take away the fact that I am entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, based on the facts surrounding these issues, is that the US has acted like a terrorist and a bully.
Too bad in the US you technically only have three parties, two on the extremes (republicans ("rightwing") & democrats ("leftwing")) and one smaller one more in the middle (liberals).
It's not very effective as a democracy, in my (foreign) view.
But I look at it with Dutch eyes, in The Netherlands anyone can start a political party and get elected.
On the post: How The Press Misleads About Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone is anon, it's not a single group.
On the post: MPAA Reminding Universities They Need To Crack Down On File Sharing -- Leaves Out How It Lied To Get The Law Passed
Re: Re: "A few friends" isn't the problem...
If only people wouldn't to give the movies free publicity by sharing it online, I mean, if only they wouldn't steal the movie.
On the post: Imagine If The NY Times Had Ignored Wikileaks Cables
Re: Re:
On the post: Imagine If The NY Times Had Ignored Wikileaks Cables
Re: Wikileaks redacts and censors, and withholds information..
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, Darryl?
If he didn't redact the files, you'd be complaining that Wikileaks endangers lives by releasing names of informants.
They are steadily going through the stack of the 250000 documents and have news agencies and newspapers help them scan those documents to see which data could be very harmful and endangers lives.
That's why the rhetoric from your precious politicians is so disingenuous. Firstly, Wikileaks asked the DoD to help them go through the documents to redact the names that should remain hidden. The DoD said "no". And now they complain that Wikileaks endangers lives, despite the fact that they don't.
On the post: How Political Pundits Get Confused When They Don't Understand That Wikileaks Is Distributed
Besides that
On the post: NIH Won't Let Others Supply Life Saving Drug Even Though Genzyme Can't Make Enough
Re: Re: So...what the fuck?
On the post: PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps unrelated...
But Wikileaks itself did not leak the cables, they only published it.
If Wikileaks were to ever become indicted and convicted of a crime relating these and/or other cables, you might want to take a moment to remember the First Amendement and the freedom of the press, before the judges put those in a shredder.
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re:
if it's not affecting much in any of the truly secret things the government does, why then are they up in arms like this? What are they afraid so of, that they don't mind stepping on the first amendment for?
On the post: PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks
Re: Perhaps unrelated...
For publishing these leaks? He's no more guilty than the New York Times and the Washington Post were (the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Scandal respectively)
Secondly, Wikileaks has yet to do anything that's illegal according to US laws.
So, stating that as your reason to deny or worse close someone's account with your service is weaksauce.
Thirdly, the Paypal account didn't belong to Wikileaks, but to a German not-for-profit foundation, that sympathized with Wikileaks and helped them out with the funding.
Fourthly, the timeline is very suspicious, and it looks as if governmental pressure was used to get EveryDNS, Amazon and Paypal to close anything related to Wikileaks.
Which sounds suspiciously like Stateside censorship to me.
But if the US thinks that they can put this genie back inside the bottle, they've got another thing coming.
More than 300 mirrors and counting, this is like the ending in V for Vendetta, where everyone who didn't side with the government wore a Guy Fawkes' mask.
That insurance file is just that, insurance. Because I'm quite sure that Assange's life isn't safe anymore. By doing this, he makes sure that any opposing factor will not kill him outright. Especially with US public figures demanding his death, that's a handy thing to have, that insurance.
On the post: PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks
A not-for-profit foundation founded in name of Chaos Computer Club co-founder Wau Holland.
As a personal remark: I hate the way the US is behaving at the moment. It's a very scary idea to see a world power act as a petulant 2 year old child, screaming and kicking just to get their way.
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re:
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re: Re:
And the senators and other public figures who have been asking for Assange's head will look guilty of such an act, and will look bloody-handed.
(I suspect it would unleash Anonymous' full powers, which is a very scary thought, a lot more scary than the repercussions of these leaked cables.)
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: The Law Is Not What We Want It To Be
The LOC could have done nothing. No blocking of Wikileaks (and any of its mirrors) and no blocking of newspapers.
That way they have an air of levelheadedness, acknowledge that the papers are there, instruct the users that they really shouldn't be reading those documents, as they are still classified, and go on about their day.
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re: asanage is the new US hero, for making the US look like morons..
"BTW: Forget wikileaks, it was nice while it lasted, but it no longer exists. world wide by the looks of it."
Wikileaks has, at this moment, more mirror sites all over the world than ANY site in history ever had. It no longer exists? Hardly, there are a lot of people who are *hosting* (not just linking) and frequently updating their copy of the Wikileaks website.
Just to name three:
http://wikileaks.nl
http://wikileaks.2600nl.net
http://www.powned.tv/wikileaks/
and there are many more.
Oh yes, Wikileaks is dead, in your dreams.
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
What does he have to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.
On the post: Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) I have no idea whether my country can do anything to stop the US. But that does not take away the fact that I am entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, based on the facts surrounding these issues, is that the US has acted like a terrorist and a bully.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
And the politicians who are defaming a website that doesn't even do anything illegal according to US law aren't?
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
Re: Re:
It's not very effective as a democracy, in my (foreign) view.
But I look at it with Dutch eyes, in The Netherlands anyone can start a political party and get elected.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Next >>