Censorship of Wikileaks

[whitepearl]

flying:

That was some crazy stuff.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Vexx, I thought maybe you'd be interested in knowing that Daniel Ellsberg was interviewed on the Colbert Report.

Interesting find, thanks! I usually don't watch Colbert, but it's interesting to see what the leaker of the Pentagon Papers thinks. Faux News is trying to pain him as a Terrorist, but that means they'd have to do the same Ellsberg. Will they? Would they stand for covering up lies that lead to deaths as somehow being pro-American?

[synaesthetic]

I find it hilarious that we complain about other countries trying to build nukes, crying in our milk over disarmament, while we merrily continue to churn out city-destroying thermonuclear devices.

[Doughnuts]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I find it hilarious that we complain about other countries trying to build nukes, crying in our milk over disarmament, while we merrily continue to churn out city-destroying thermonuclear devices.

And then sell them on to a certain other country who won't sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

[AnimeFan188]

"The pressure on WikiLeaks is increasing. DN.se reveals that several key figures
behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive
governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in
protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service
for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the
public."

See:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/a-n...ange-1.1224764

[yezhanquan]

It's called OpenLeaks, I believe.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"The pressure on WikiLeaks is increasing. DN.se reveals that several key figures
behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive
governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in
protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service
for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the
public."

See:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/a-n...ange-1.1224764

Really, Assange did come off to me as the ass holey type that'd be hard to work with. Though I imagine allot of people at wikileaks are tired of so much of their organizations goals being consumed and distracted by all the drama surrounding Assange.

[Anh_Minh]

I do wonder about Assange's attention grabbing. He said his role was to be a lightning rod for all the trouble that came from publishing leaks. And I can't really deny that it's worked. So, when he puts himself forward, is he trying to protect the rest of Wikileaks? Is it just a pretext to feed into his need for fame? Both?

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I do wonder about Assange's attention grabbing. He said his role was to be a lightning rod for all the trouble that came from publishing leaks. And I can't really deny that it's worked. So, when he puts himself forward, is he trying to protect the rest of Wikileaks? Is it just a pretext to feed into his need for fame? Both?

If it's the first option, then it's not that good of a plan. The big advantage of these decentralized web operations is that there ISN'T a head to cut off. If no head presented itself, the people upset at wikileaks wouldn't have any kind of figure to direct rage at the organization, so their anger would mostly just sputter and fizzle. Now that Assange has made it that his face appears on every wiki leaks story and is plastered on the cover of times and forbes, they have a very ready target.


Assange is either rather foolish or egotistical.

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

If it's the first option, then it's not that good of a plan. The big advantage of these decentralized web operations is that there ISN'T a head to cut off. If no head presented itself, the people upset at wikileaks wouldn't have any kind of figure to direct rage at the organization, so their anger would mostly just sputter and fizzle.

Actually i doubt that. What those in power would do would be to concentrate resources on finding ONE person then cause grief to that person in a manner that will send a message (best result if no publicity occurs). This is simply to create fear and uncertainity in all those connected by implicitly saying "We got one, we can get YOU" even if its false.

Having one public guy does 3 things.
i) Those in power will go after this guy, since it is low hanging fruit (aka bait).
ii) It makes people aware of actions taken against this fella since he is out in the open
iii) It lets leakers know who they can contact and know for sure that its not some undercover agent posing (unless facially similar + plastic surgery modified).

Is he on an ego trip? Who knows. Logically though, this method has its pros. Cons for the bait is of course expected

[Ending]

Spoiler:

To me, Open Leaks smells a little bit like a trap due to the timing and the fact that it uses traditional media as a primary way to publish material. I'm sure US would like nothing better than hosting a "leak" service of their own, with full access to the original data and the source, both easily eliminated with one bullet.

On the other hand, if the leakers are careful, it's another way to get the material out.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I do wonder about Assange's attention grabbing. He said his role was to be a lightning rod for all the trouble that came from publishing leaks. And I can't really deny that it's worked. So, when he puts himself forward, is he trying to protect the rest of Wikileaks? Is it just a pretext to feed into his need for fame? Both?

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Assange is either rather foolish or egotistical.

To put it bluntly, yes.

Think about it: He's putting himself up as a target for the largest governments and largest corporations. He's standing up to them.

Regardless of what you think about how he's gone about it, that takes balls. Huge stainless steel titanium balls. Could you do that? Or are you content to keep your head down and not attract trouble?

In short, an ego comes with the territory. He may be foolish (history will judge years from now), but there are certain people who stand out in history, and the one common thing you will find with most of them, was that they were egotistical. They had to be, to have the force of personality needed to enact change.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Really, Assange did come off to me as the ass holey type that'd be hard to work with. Though I imagine allot of people at wikileaks are tired of so much of their organizations goals being consumed and distracted by all the drama surrounding Assange.

The largest irony? Just the day before, Wikileaks leaked the US Embassy's view of Kevin Rudd - and they seem to be applicable to Assange too!

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Ending

To me, Open Leaks smells a little bit like a trap due to the timing and the fact that it uses traditional media as a primary way to publish material. I'm sure US would like nothing better than hosting a "leak" service of their own, with full access to the original data and the source, both easily eliminated with one bullet.

On the other hand, if the leakers are careful, it's another way to get the material out.

Nah, it's no trap. It's a collection of disillusioned former Wikileaks activists who were "suspended" by Assange over disagreements on how to handle certain issues. I remember reading a lengthy interview with their head guy weeks before Wikileaks became a big public issue.

[Kusa-San]

Operation : LeakSpin :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLcUV...layer_embedded

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

To put it bluntly, yes.

Think about it: He's putting himself up as a target for the largest governments and largest corporations. He's standing up to them.

Regardless of what you think about how he's gone about it, that takes balls. Huge stainless steel titanium balls. Could you do that? Or are you content to keep your head down and not attract trouble?

Your point? I could try to stand up directly to a freight train. It'd be pretty ballsy, but it'd also be completely futile.

It doesn't matter how ballsy or brave is Assange is for letting himself be put out in the open as a martyr/celebrity or whatever. By putting himself out in the open to get smeared by the opposition he's playing into their hands. Cause no matter how bad the US government looks trying to persecute Assange, it'll still be better that people focus on that then a few choice leaked bits of material that wikileaks has unveiled. By having everything in the media become focused on Assange, the focus of the scrutiny has shifted from the really dirty skeletons in the governments closets, and it's become focused on all this melodrama around Assange.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

In short, an ego comes with the territory. He may be foolish (history will judge years from now), but there are certain people who stand out in history, and the one common thing you will find with most of them, was that they were egotistical. They had to be, to have the force of personality needed to enact change.

What positive change is being made by all the publicity around the documents wikileaks is releasing towards the melodrama with Assange? When media focus was entirely on the leaked material, the United States was on the defensive and had to explain themselves. When the focus becomes on Assange, they can launch personal attacks on him which distract from all the leaked material on US government/military cluster fucks.


One thing you forget Kaijo, is that for every egotistical person who managed to change things, there were a hundred who flailed around impotently and accomplished nothing after raising a fuss.

Originally Posted by FlavorOfLife

Actually i doubt that. What those in power would do would be to concentrate resources on finding ONE person then cause grief to that person in a manner that will send a message (best result if no publicity occurs). This is simply to create fear and uncertainity in all those connected by implicitly saying "We got one, we can get YOU" even if its false.

For an organization trying to get leaked material out, being somewhat afraid of the government is a better position than having all the stuff your leaking getting ignored since the media is to busy focusing on our celebrity spokesman.

[MeoTwister5]

I personally can't understand how some can put him up on some sort of holier than thou pedestal like he was the second incarnation of Gandhi or something. He may have done some (admirable?) things that require balls of adamantium to do, but he's far from being some sort of saint we all need to emulate or worship. As Roger Rambo said, the problem now is that all eyes or on him rather than on the leaks. The attention the entire issue is generating is focusing on him rather than on the information released. I find this completely counterproductive to the supposed aims of the group, and likely one of the main (and valid) reasons why many of his supporters at Wikileaks simply can't stand him anymore.

All this should have been about the information and the good the accessibility to freedom should bring, and not about Assange. By making it his personal war for whatever reason (glory?) and galvanizing the world towards him, the entire point of the exercise is lost. It becomes one man's war with the political entrenchment rather than society against the chains that bind them.

[Roger Rambo]

Just to prove my point. A PMC in Afghanistan was bassically running a prostitution ring of underage boys to local Afghan cops. Wikileaks released documents that showed Afghani officials conspiring with the US to avoid any leak about the incident. Is this kind of truely outrageous thing that Wikileaks revealed become a major focus of media debate? No. Because apparently some asshole Aussie getting persecuted by the US government is a bigger issue than PMC's under the employ of the US government selling off kids as sex slaves.


How many people in this thread heard about Assange's arrest but didn't hear about this?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I personally can't understand how some can put him up on some sort of holier than thou pedestal like he was the second incarnation of Gandhi or something. He may have done some (admirable?) things that require balls of adamantium to do, but he's far from being some sort of saint we all need to emulate or worship. As Roger Rambo said, the problem now is that all eyes or on him rather than on the leaks. The attention the entire issue is generating is focusing on him rather than on the information released. I find this completely counterproductive to the supposed aims of the group, and likely one of the main (and valid) reasons why many of his supporters at Wikileaks simply can't stand him anymore.

I think that point pretty much proved how much the general flock of sheep has tunnel vision and are unable to focus on both perspectives in a macro-view at the same time.

By redirecting our attention at Assange we would give less view to Wikileaks, so that the guilty can clean up their mess with our eyes elsewhere - another tactic of politics except in the giant office of the world.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think that point pretty much proved how much the general flock of sheep has tunnel vision and are unable to focus on both perspectives in a macro-view at the same time.

By redirecting our attention at Assange we would give less view to Wikileaks, so that the guilty can clean up their mess with our eyes elsewhere - another tactic of politics except in the giant office of the world.

Perhaps the diverted attention to Assange wasn't Assange's doing at all, but the doing of the public media in an attempt to get people away from reading Wikileaks and putting Assange in a bad light to discourage them. That being said, they wouldn't be entirely wrong to depict him in a bad perspective considering his recklessness with the leaks, and the fact that other WikiLeak supporters became disillusioned could mean that Assange really is simply full of himself. However, who'se to say that these supporters really were supporters working for Assange? What if they came out of nowhere to put him in a further bad perspective to the masses?