Censorship of Wikileaks

[SSIlanya]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

Funny. Gillard promised ANDREW WILKIE to protect whistle-blowers - and the Private Member Bill regarding it was passed - then an about-face from Gillard? Truly, Canberra sold out to Washington.

Shooting the messenger, anyone?

So it's either support the most important ally through tough currents and waves or appease one Australian minister.

The choice is obvious.

[flying ^]

i found an interesting quote burried somewhere in huffpo

"If you want to keep secrets store them where Obama keeps his college transcripts and birth certificate."

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

From the guy who actually published the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed just how screwed up things were,

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/publ...-press-release

This is exactly it.

And this is a civil war, but not like the kind you were expecting. This is a war vs. those who would keep secrets to the detriment of those they would presume to rule. The internet is a communication medium unlike any before, and what's happening now, is something that was predicted to happen years ago. The people can connect with each other and spread the word unlike ever before.

This is a war, in the terms of an infowar. A fight between those who would keep secrets, and those who desire honesty and openness in their governments. Yes, it may just be Assange and wikileaks and Anon DDOS'ing websites, but it always has to start somewhere. The key is to get everyone else involved; so get involved! Yes, big changes won't happen without enough people, so that's why we're trying to get people.

It's time to see if principles are worth fighting for, or if you'll just decide to keep your head down and hope you can make it to your dying day without losing too many of your rights, or being inconvenienced too much.

Obama promised an open, transparent government. Wikileaks is fulfilling that since he wouldn't, and he's attacking them for it.

How many lines in the sand will you draw that they step over, before you decide it's enough?

[Autumn Demon]

A correspondent from The Economist talks with Anonymous. Article. Video.

I support what Wikileaks is doing but it's hard to justify Anonymous's actions.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vexx

From the guy who actually published the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed just how screwed up things were,

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/publ...-press-release

I want people to read what Daniel Ellsberg has to say... and then go do some reading on the processes and protocols of keeping government accountable with a "free press" (and a free press includes anonymous postings like Thomas Paine and others have done in history).

The "press" is not General Electric, Disney, or Rupert Murdoch though they have purchased a great deal of it, it isn't just those with 'government press credentials' - the "press" can be anyone whom "the people" use to get "the news" from.

[Reckoner]

The biggest joke about wikileaks to me is that literally 9 times out of 10 that I bring up the topic of it to other people my age, most of them have either a) Never heard of it, or b) have an extremely faint idea, but don't know any details.

What's the point of making information clearer if people are still going to be apathetic, especially the coming generations that will be the head of this country.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The biggest joke about wikileaks to me is that literally 9 times out of 10 that I bring up the topic of it to other people my age, most of them have either a) Never heard of it, or b) have an extremely faint idea, but don't know any details.

What's the point of making information clearer if people are still going to be apathetic, especially the coming generations that will be the head of this country.

Well, Einstein didn't say this for no reason :

There are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. I am not sure about the universe.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I want people to read what Daniel Ellsberg has to say... and then go do some reading on the processes and protocols of keeping government accountable with a "free press" (and a free press includes anonymous postings like Thomas Paine and others have done in history).

The "press" is not General Electric, Disney, or Rupert Murdoch though they have purchased a great deal of it, it isn't just those with 'government press credentials' - the "press" can be anyone whom "the people" use to get "the news" from.

And probably this. A piece of text 24 years ago that is still highly relevant but everybody ignores.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Most definitely. Someone will come again, and this latest move by Assange has doubtlessly inspired a lot of people. In fact, if WikiLeaks dies, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the people who was once working on the site will escape whatever purge the US has in store for them and create his own website.

What I meant by "dying" is that the US pulls up its socks to ensure that no FURTHER documents are being saved illegally for future leaks. Really, security breaches in this episode is mind-boggling.

@SH: Well, many today are simply not willing to draw the lines to connect the dots, even though Wikileaks have provided them the pens/pencils to do it. You can lead the horse to the river, but the darn horse must want to lower its head to drink.

I think Fareed Zakaria nailed it in his latest article for Time magazine.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The biggest joke about wikileaks to me is that literally 9 times out of 10 that I bring up the topic of it to other people my age, most of them have either a) Never heard of it, or b) have an extremely faint idea, but don't know any details.

What's the point of making information clearer if people are still going to be apathetic, especially the coming generations that will be the head of this country.

And it's not gonna get any better...

This is what the society elite want. General ignorance of the general population. The less we know about things, the easier it will be for them to do their thing: Accumulate more power and wealth.

Look what's been happening now. America is getting dumber, the wealthy are getting wealthier. Even worse, the dumber are electing officials who are helping the wealthy - at the expense of the dumber.

Now, it's somewhat unfortunate that Wikileaks IS acting in the open now, rather than "underground" like before. Just imagine how much more info. they could have accumulated. Plus, they could have taken the time to sift through the information; and finally let it all out.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Really, security breaches in this episode is mind-boggling.

How ironic that secrets are easier to keep prior to the Internet.

[yezhanquan]

Not really, KyuuA4. I quote Zakaria:

"So we have ended up with a private at an Army base in Iraq able to download secret readouts of conversations between the Secretary of Defense and the French Foreign Minister."

Look at the statement. It's absurd, really.

[Slick_rick]

Honestly nothing in wikileaks, with the except of the helicopter incident, isn't anything I didn't see on a daily basis while in the military. More candid opinions and assessments of situations going on for the information of commanders and people who might have need to know. It often can give a lot of the inner workings of international politics and cooperation between governments but for most people it is useless information. Most of it is outdated and worthless for practical purposes.

The leak helps enemies more so than it truly tells the public anything they didn't know or shouldn't have surmised. Governments all keep secrets because they must protect themselves from possible enemies knowing how they operate. No government can function properly by being truly transparent cause forces working against them will take that information and use it to run counter to their goals. This will also make government much less willing to share candid information for fear of another leak.

This incident makes America look, rightfully so, as a country that is in disarray and losing hold on its people trust. The American government is far from the most trustworthy operation but certainly none of the information, with the exception of the helicopter incident, I've seen so far shows it doing anything remotely amoral or objectionable when compared to what any other country would do to protect its interests. Why is transparency so important? Are people upset that government doesn't pander to them even more so than they do now? You elect leaders to lead not to coddle you. Was any of the information honestly of worth to you besides finding out the government often isn't complete open on the things it does to the people? I would assume most people would realize this and understand the reasoning behind it.

If this had been top secret information though then you'd have gotten the good stuff. Like about Aliens, Bigfoot, the gunman on the grassy knoll, and how Bush, Obama and Jesus conspired to ruin all of your days. You're not getting those out of me so American's will have to wait a bit for another "hero" to come by. I might actually considered that one to be a hero more so than this phony wannabe.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by bayoab

A very quick google suggests (proves if you believe the interviews) that nothing more happened than the equivalent of a IT security officer calling a company to tell them they had an infected computer. And if you read the PR by Lieberman, he's basically taking credit for telling Amazon they had a TOS violation. There is no suggestion of any political pressure.

bayoab, you can't possibly be serious. I don't intend to waste my time googling, but you think that the staff of chickenhawk Lieberman would kindly point out to Amazon "hey, you got an infected computer"? This is bullshit squared.

If my boss would come into my office and asks "do you plan on moving your server containing your fansub stuff elsewhere?" I know that this would mean "Pack your stuff and put it elsewhere, or else".

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The biggest joke about wikileaks to me is that literally 9 times out of 10 that I bring up the topic of it to other people my age, most of them have either a) Never heard of it, or b) have an extremely faint idea, but don't know any details.

What's the point of making information clearer if people are still going to be apathetic, especially the coming generations that will be the head of this country.

I don't even think people in our generation are apathetic. They just tend to be so clueless they CAN'T care. Scary stuff.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The biggest joke about wikileaks to me is that literally 9 times out of 10 that I bring up the topic of it to other people my age, most of them have either a) Never heard of it, or b) have an extremely faint idea, but don't know any details.

What's the point of making information clearer if people are still going to be apathetic, especially the coming generations that will be the head of this country.

It's information overload. Wikileaks doing nothing but just throwing tons and tons of stuff out there and most of it is useless or already known and suspected.

If Wikileaks actually takes the time and sifts through it for actual major stuff then maybe it will accomplish what it wanted to do.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

This incident makes America look, rightfully so, as a country that is in disarray and losing hold on its people trust. The American government is far from the most trustworthy operation but certainly none of the information, with the exception of the helicopter incident, I've seen so far shows it doing anything remotely amoral or objectionable when compared to what any other country would do to protect its interests.

Well, for example I knew Germany received sort of a hint from the US when they wanted to start an investigation and prosecution of CIA members who were taking part in the Khaled el-Masri abduction. The cables revealed how thinly veiled these warnings were (lets call them threats). Even if found guilty, the actual sentences in Germany are usually so weak, they would have received what?... probation sentences and no request for extradition. But this threat actually made it a complicated matter to deal with... how do you explain your people, that a foreign intelligence (an allied nation) abducts and tortures one of your citizens and you do nothing at all.

In that regard, the cables show the arrogance that isn't second to the stuff the chinese government does all the time when dealing with foreign politics (and we are talking about allies, you can estimate what actual enemies are in for). It shows the real USA, not what the media wants to make you believe. In that regard the cables are indeed a good thing. Because it levels the moral grounds on which the USA starts their campaigns/wars (pretending to defend free democratic ideals - what a farce).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Honestly nothing in wikileaks, with the except of the helicopter incident, isn't anything I didn't see on a daily basis while in the military. More candid opinions and assessments of situations going on for the information of commanders and people who might have need to know. It often can give a lot of the inner workings of international politics and cooperation between governments but for most people it is useless information. Most of it is outdated and worthless for practical purposes.

The leak helps enemies more so than it truly tells the public anything they didn't know or shouldn't have surmised. Governments all keep secrets because they must protect themselves from possible enemies knowing how they operate. No government can function properly by being truly transparent cause forces working against them will take that information and use it to run counter to their goals. This will also make government much less willing to share candid information for fear of another leak.

Make up your mind. Are the leaks worthless stuff that everybody knows, or helpful to "the enemy"? (And who's that, anyway, and how does that help them?)

This incident makes America look, rightfully so, as a country that is in disarray and losing hold on its people trust. The American government is far from the most trustworthy operation but certainly none of the information, with the exception of the helicopter incident, I've seen so far shows it doing anything remotely amoral or objectionable when compared to what any other country would do to protect its interests. Why is transparency so important? Are people upset that government doesn't pander to them even more so than they do now? You elect leaders to lead not to coddle you. Was any of the information honestly of worth to you besides finding out the government often isn't complete open on the things it does to the people? I would assume most people would realize this and understand the reasoning behind it.

I sure as hell don't vote for people so they can lie to me. (OK, I vote for liars because that's all that's on the menu, but I consider this a bug, not a feature.) And what if I "understand the reasoning"? Does that mean I have to approve? Does that mean it can't ever be on the table, to be voted on?

If this had been top secret information though then you'd have gotten the good stuff. Like about Aliens, Bigfoot, the gunman on the grassy knoll, and how Bush, Obama and Jesus conspired to ruin all of your days. You're not getting those out of me so American's will have to wait a bit for another "hero" to come by. I might actually considered that one to be a hero more so than this phony wannabe.

Ah, yes. You don't think people can hear the little truths, but you yearn for the big ones. Very consistent, there.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

It's information overload. Wikileaks doing nothing but just throwing tons and tons of stuff out there and most of it is useless or already known and suspected.

If Wikileaks actually takes the time and sifts through it for actual major stuff then maybe it will accomplish what it wanted to do.

Or it would defeat the purpose by making them like everyone else. They're not out to quote choice bits of semi-secrets out of context and create a sensation, but to release as much as they can and let others decide what's important. (And, yes, create a sensation. Can't argue it didn't work, can you?)

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Or it would defeat the purpose by making them like everyone else. They're not out to quote choice bits of semi-secrets out of context and create a sensation, but to release as much as they can and let others decide what's important. (And, yes, create a sensation. Can't argue it didn't work, can you?)

It's mostly people overreacting to it that's giving it fuel to the fire and I blame that on the media.
I think of it like giving a kid a match to light a candle and instead the kid somehow burns down the whole forest with it.

The thing I find hilarious is how every's views though on America is changing.

After WWII everyone held the United States of America as the bastion of hope and glory and freedom just like how people quote, "Rome brought the light to the world."

Now here people are finding out that the United States of America is just like any other country in the world. I mean serious, people actually brought into the whole "United States is invincible, United States could do no wrong, United States is awesome and brings light to the darkest corners of the earth, whatever they say means that its right."

I mean it got to the point I just want to vomit. So the only good thing I find is perhaps people would spot sprouting that nonsense.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

It's information overload. Wikileaks doing nothing but just throwing tons and tons of stuff out there and most of it is useless or already known and suspected.

If Wikileaks actually takes the time and sifts through it for actual major stuff then maybe it will accomplish what it wanted to do.

Showing that the US underreported civilian casualties in Iraq by an estimated 15,000 isn't major to you?

What. The. Fuck.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Showing that the US underreported civilian casualties in Iraq by an estimated 15,000 isn't major to you?

What. The. Fuck.

When it comes to Iraq, that is hardly the most shocking thing. When the US can wage war on a false casus belli, this is par for the course.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

When it comes to Iraq, that is hardly the most shocking thing. When the US can wage war on a false casus belli, this is par for the course.

Then I think we seriously need to revisit our standards for 'shocking'