Wikileaks supporters hacking Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, etc. by Geezer

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So when they're screwing these companies, they're also screwing millions of innocent folks who just want to pay their bills. Does that seem right to you?

No.

But hackers are criminals. They are not "right" to begin with.

Zoe: I know somethin' ain't right.
Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right we'd be in jail.

What needs to be seen is that the people they are fighting? They are ALSO criminals.

So criminals fight other criminals, and a bunch of innocent bystanders get screwed. No, not right. That is why wars suck.

But at least the hackers haven't killed anyone, yet or that we know of. The criminals they are fighting? They support the larger criminal organization that kills innocent people ALL the time. That is why these lesser criminals get any sympathy at all.

Just like the way Mal and his crew get sympathy for fighting the Alliance.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
Everything I say is just my opinion and is not meant to be interpreted as fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 5:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Interesting to learn that Mastercard and VISA are now dictating what you can buy.

I'm sure the cyberhackers will be tracked down and charged with crimes eventually. The hackers' impact was rather inconsequential. Almost more of a political protest than any real sabotage.

I find VISA and Mastercard's activities much more troubling. As far as I know, there has been no legal injunction against Wikileaks, no Terrorist funding clauses have been activated, nothing. If I want to use my card to donate to them, I ought to be able to. That these companies could just arbitrarily decide to stop servicing their customers is unfortunate.

I'm sure some small print in the credit card agreement gives them this power. And honestly, there's zero long-term impact. People are not going to stop using credit cards in protest over this.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:07 AM

KANEMAN

When the government bullies companies to stop doing business with a client...we have a problem.

I am aware that mastercard has a policy of not doing buisness with illegal acts in an entity...Then they should stop Hillary Clinton from having a card..wasn't she the one Wikileaks exposed for asking the secret service to get the credit card numbers of foreign diplomats?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
When the government bullies companies to stop doing business with a client...we have a problem.

I am aware that mastercard has a policy of not doing buisness with illegal acts in an entity...Then they should stop Hillary Clinton from having a card..wasn't she the one Wikileaks exposed for asking the secret service to get the credit card numbers of foreign diplomats?

I applaud Visa and Mastercard and anyone else joining the fight against the cyber-terrorists and anarchists who seek to undermine the United States and create world chaos.

When I first heard the stories revealed about Hillary's data-gathering activities I heard it on TV from Dick Morris, her old pal from the White House days. He painted a dark picture of her being some kind of maniacal despot using secret personnel files to intimdate and manipulate her enemies. Then I thought about all that a bit. Now I think she was both right and smart to have this info at State Dept. That's really her job now, to understand who she's dealing with, use leverage and strength when possible, and back away when necessary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I applaud Visa and Mastercard and anyone else joining the fight against the cyber-terrorists and anarchists who seek to undermine the United States and create world chaos."

Hello,

Mastercard and Visa have targeted Wikileaks, not cyber-terrorists or anarchists. As importantly, they have taken away our ability to support a press service.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:33 AM

That's why your views are in the tiniest of minorities in America. Wikileaks is not journalism or any type of press service. It is an entity that traffics in proliferating stolen classified material. They are aiding and abetting illegal activity designed to damage the United States.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think you may not understand the function of journalism. Journalists are supposed to expose the deeds of governments.

Here is a Primer:

"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 First Amendment

Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

--Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."

—Justice Black

So, as you can see, the opinion of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has classically been on Wikileaks' side.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:09 AM

I believe you're dead wrong Anthony. There is NO journalism involved here. Secret classified Govt documents were STOLEN! Do you know what stolen means? Do you understand or believe that a country has the right to have secrets? Do you believe a country has sovereign rights? What about borders; does a country have the right to protect its' borders? How about patents?...Is releasing stolen patent info to the world justified in your view as journalism? Or weapons? Should all info on our weapons systems and vital security locations be released to the world? How can you think releasing these stolen classifed documents to the world in any way constitutes journalism? We have espionage laws. You are part of a strange breed of America-haters. You seem to relish anyone or anything that damages America's interests. In my view Wikileaks is the same as Al Qaida or any other criminal group.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:11 AM

KANEMAN

"When I first heard the stories revealed about Hillary's data-gathering activities I heard it on TV from Dick Morris, her old pal from the White House days. He painted a dark picture of her being some kind of maniacal despot using secret personnel files to intimdate and manipulate her enemies. Then I thought about all that a bit. Now I think she was both right and smart to have this info at State Dept. That's really her job now, to understand who she's dealing with, use leverage and strength when possible, and back away when necessary."

And this attitude is why I don't like you

No. I get the safety aspect of all this, however my libertarian part calls bullshit. Clinton should not be able to get any info on anyone UNLESS they are deemed a threat to the US. Wikileaks should not name names...But, the private CO that do business with wikileaks should stay out of it....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:23 AM

Looks like I'm batting .500 with you today Kaneman. I see your point, but give Hillary a break man. She's maintained a lot of grace under some really horrendous conditions that have been dumped on her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Secret classified Govt documents were STOLEN! Do you know what stolen means?"

Hello,

Yes. In this case, it means a U.S. government employee took data off of a government computer and sent it to the press.

"How can you think releasing these stolen classifed documents to the world in any way constitutes journalism?"

It turns out that these stolen, classified documents have revealed misconduct. The U.S. government has lied to the American people about things that impact our ability to make informed decisions. This has happened before. Please reference The Pentagon Papers. In this famous case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the press to publish classified documents.

"We have espionage laws."

We also have whistleblower laws, and all manner of other laws, including strong protections of the Press.

"You are part of a strange breed of America-haters."

You are misinformed, judgmental, and rude.

"You seem to relish anyone or anything that damages America's interests."

I believe the American government works for me. And I believe they've been lying to me. I further believe that the only way I can know that they've been lying to me is if someone tells me about it. I can't make good decisions about hiring and firing in my organization if I don't get this information. My concern is very much for America. But America means something different to us. To me, America is properly defined by three words: We The People.

"In my view Wikileaks is the same as Al Qaida or any other criminal group."

I find your ability to equate Wikileaks to Al Qaida and to all criminals astonishing.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:34 AM

So in your view the job of a "journalist" is to engage with criminals in an effort to promulagate info they have stolen from our Govt. Not to have a journalist gather his own info in a lawful manner? For you the end justifies the means? Why then don't they just engage and pay the Mafia to kidnap politicians off the street to glean any info they may have, then sell it to the highest bidder....China, North Korea, Iran, whatever, right? I mean, hey, if ANTHONY believes that some wrong was done, then that justifies and excuses almost anything. I think you are suicidal in your naive and candidesque beliefs, never showing one iota of concern or loyalty to your own country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Jong,

You have an interesting talent for inflating something to ludicrousness.

Let me show you the opposite danger.

You vote for people who will enact laws you don't believe in. You support policies you do not agree with. You move the country in directions you abhor. Entire wars are fought, entire governments rearranged, tens of thousands of lives are snuffed out. Resources are plundered, and deals of oppression are struck. You make it all happen. You do all of these things despite not desiring to do any of them. And you do them all because the government was able to lie to you, and no one was able to tell you about it.

So while you entertain your bizarre notions of espionage and mafia abductions, do me the courtesy of entertaining the notion that our government, contrary to our wishes, is capable of doing those things times a million. Only the freedom of the press to publish this information stands between us and that fate.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:10 AM

Since your imagination seems to be somewhat stunted, allow me to offer you a different scenario, one closer to home than my Mafia one.......

Let's say I don't like you for some reason. Then someone comes to me with a computer they just stole from your house. Certainly that person commited a crime. If I access your files and then put all your confidential info including bank acct numbers, credit card info etc, out on the web does that make me a journalist or an accessory to the crime?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So in your view the job of a "journalist" is to engage with criminals in an effort to promulagate info they have stolen from our Govt. Not to have a journalist gather his own info in a lawful manner?

If a super powerful institution commits a crime, it is going to use all its power to hide it. The only way to expose this crime is to commit the crime of stealing the information. The person who steals the information is called a whistleblower.

The job of a journalist is to publish the stolen information, to inform citizens of said crimes, and to allow the process of restitution and justice to take its course.

In the Pentagon Papers, the whistleblower was Daniel Ellsberg. The journalist was the New York Times.

In Cablegate, the whistleblower was Bradley Manning. The journalist is Wikileaks.

Quote:
For you the end justifies the means?

No, the means of stealing the information is still illegal and not justified. Both Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning were arrested. Daniel Ellsberg's charges were eventually dismissed. I suspect Bradley Manning won't be so lucky. But both did what they believed to be the right thing and were willing to take the risk of imprisonment to act according to their conscience.

In the Pentagon Papers, the govt chose not to prosecute the NYT and Washington Post under the Espionage Act. In Cablegate, the govt is thinking very hard about prosecuting Assange.

If it does try to prosecute Assange, that would be an epic legal battle worth watching.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I find VISA and Mastercard's activities much more troubling. As far as I know, there has been no legal injunction against Wikileaks, no Terrorist funding clauses have been activated, nothing. If I want to use my card to donate to them, I ought to be able to. That these companies could just arbitrarily decide to stop servicing their customers is unfortunate.

I do, too, and would have used a somewhat stronger word than “unfortunate”.

Quote:
When the government bullies companies to stop doing business with a client...we have a problem.

Yup, but we’ve had that problem through the ages, haven’t we? Hasn’t government been able to put pressure on many to assist it in doing what it wants?

I disagree, JS. If what concerns us is held by the minority of Americans, then in my opinion it, again, is a reflection of the fear rampant in our country today. Despite everything that’s come out, many (most?) of us STILL cling to the concept that if we give up freedoms, the government will trade that for protection. Doesn’t work that way, as any thinking person should know from history, but fear isn’t logical. Neither is nationalism, which I think is behind many thinking that way.

Where are all those who were screaming for “transparency”?? The fact that this transparency has embarrassed our country and brought to light actual wrong acts doesn’t seem to count anymore. It IS journalism, in some ways (SMALL ways and I recognize the difficulties in the analogy) it’s like the press reporting on a legislator’s affair in Argentina. No doubt they got their information from “legal” sources, but the government decides what’s legal and what’s not, and that shouldn’t preclude the public’s right to facts, however uncomfortable they may be.

Quote:
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell

Bang on. And makes the only argument that SHOULD be necessary.

The cry of “American haters” and “anti American”, “mafia” and “like Al Qaeda” are the sort of things always hurled at those who question their government or stand up for transparency, often even just those who disagree with the government, or even disagree on ANYTHING. To say the documents were stolen completely ignores history and the many times governments have been found to be acting illegally via the method of prying into their “classified” material. Governments can classify anything and keep secrets from the public; that doesn’t mean they have the right to, or that they won’t abuse the privilege repeatedly to do what they want as opposed to what’s legal or right.

How exactly do you suggest “journalists” go about discovering things legally which the government wishes to keep secret? ANYTHING revealed which the government chooses to keep secret is therefore revealed by breaking the “law” the government put in place. If an ex-government official exposes secrets from his time in the government which expose illegalities and atrocities, essentially he got that information “illegally” too. If an ex-employee of, say the tobacco companies, reveals information that shows the duped the public and did horrendous things they kept secret, he’s breaking the law too. How do you propose journalists expose wrongs done by anyone “legally”?

The Pentagon Papers is the perfect comeback for the concept that the government’s “secrets” and “classified documents” could ONLY have been revealed by stealing them. Obviously you’d have preferred those documents not be exposed, nor the Vietnam Papers or any other material the government could have said was “stolen illegally”. If you trust the government so completely, good luck to you.

My feelings about Wikileaks are mixed, but to find that our government could coerce corporations into doing its bidding in an effort to avoid transparency and/or punish those who expose material worries me far more.

Also, I believe the hackers only screwed things up for a short time, and only screwed up some aspects of people's accounts even for that time; they did not hack accounts, they did not keep people from buying things for long (to the best of my knowledge); nonetheless I disapprove of what they did.

I'm also not aware of anything exposed by Wikileaks which in fact actually damaged our country. Diplomacy took a hit, fer shore, and I don't like their holding over our heads that they have a "poison pill", but I sure don't see what they exposed as terrorism, traitorous or any of the other overblown rhetoric you spouted.

(ETA: I see CTTS made some of my argument more concisely...thank you CTTS, but I disagree that whistleblowers should be prosecuted for their "illegal" acts, given the government can claim anything they don't want exposed was done so "illegally".)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:35 AM

Pentagon Papers....1971? I graduated HS in 1971. A whole new world now, with many changes in Federal Laws concerning espionage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, and much of the lack of transparency now is because of 9/11 and the culture of fear it has inspired, as well as the increased power of the government to KEEP secrets. Doesn't make it irrelevant, only means we live in a time when people are willing to give the government more power to keep secrets.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:43 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Since your imagination seems to be somewhat stunted, allow me to offer you a different scenario, one closer to home than my Mafia one.......

Let's say I don't like you for some reason. Then someone comes to me with a computer they just stole from your house. Certainly that person commited a crime. If I access your files and then put all your confidential info including bank acct numbers, credit card info etc, out on the web does that make me a journalist or an accessory to the crime?"

Hello,

The mere act of publishing makes you a part of the press. That would not be in dispute.

But are you also a criminal, and to what extent and why?

Well, I think if you take posession of stolen property, that is definitely a crime. However, that is much too easy an answer.

What if the crook only told you my account information, and you never actually touched or took posession of a piece of stolen property? Are you allowed to publish private financial information that you learn about me?

Well, I looked into it. Invasion of Privacy comes into play here:

"Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person."

Here, the publishing of my account information would run over Privacy Protection laws.

However, I think this part can't be stressed enough: "one person reveals information which is not of public concern."

So, now you need to study two questions to make your case.

1) Is a Country entitled to the same privacy protections as individuals?

2) Is the activity of a Country of Public Concern to its citizenry?

And this is where I feel your indignation ought to vaporize. Even if you make the astounding suggestion that a government has all the rights of a person, you then run crashing into the inevitable fact: There is a VERY STRONG public concern about the activities of Government.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:08 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Interesting to learn that Mastercard and VISA are now dictating what you can buy.

I'm sure the cyberhackers will be tracked down and charged with crimes eventually. The hackers' impact was rather inconsequential. Almost more of a political protest than any real sabotage.

I find VISA and Mastercard's activities much more troubling. As far as I know, there has been no legal injunction against Wikileaks, no Terrorist funding clauses have been activated, nothing. If I want to use my card to donate to them, I ought to be able to. That these companies could just arbitrarily decide to stop servicing their customers is unfortunate.

I'm sure some small print in the credit card agreement gives them this power. And honestly, there's zero long-term impact. People are not going to stop using credit cards in protest over this.

I couldn't agree more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:13 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So in your view the job of a "journalist" is to engage with criminals in an effort to promulagate info they have stolen from our Govt. Not to have a journalist gather his own info in a lawful manner? For you the end justifies the means? Why then don't they just engage and pay the Mafia to kidnap politicians off the street to glean any info they may have, then sell it to the highest bidder....China, North Korea, Iran, whatever, right? I mean, hey, if ANTHONY believes that some wrong was done, then that justifies and excuses almost anything. I think you are suicidal in your naive and candidesque beliefs, never showing one iota of concern or loyalty to your own country.

Journalists use leaked information all the time. Remember Watergate?

Wikileaks did not sell off the information, they published it on the Internet freely for anyone to access, because that is their mission..to undermine the secrecy and subterfuge carried out by the most powerful on this planet so that ordinary people can have access to decisions allegedly *cough cough* made on their behalf.

Interesting how Assange has broken no law but there are those Americans who have called for his execution or assassination. Another example of a lot of people not seeing the hypocracy of citizens of a country that prides itself on freedom and free speech demanding that no one else gets that opportunity.

Its G'Mo all over again as far as I can see. Rampant hypocracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:27 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So in your view the job of a "journalist" is to engage with criminals in an effort to promulagate info they have stolen from our Govt. Not to have a journalist gather his own info in a lawful manner? For you the end justifies the means? Why then don't they just engage and pay the Mafia to kidnap politicians off the street to glean any info they may have, then sell it to the highest bidder....China, North Korea, Iran, whatever, right? I mean, hey, if ANTHONY believes that some wrong was done, then that justifies and excuses almost anything. I think you are suicidal in your naive and candidesque beliefs, never showing one iota of concern or loyalty to your own country.

I was going to comment on how over-the-top and ridiculous your analogy is, but I see others beat me to it.

And your comment about loyalty kinda hedges towards the "just following orders" defense. f our country is doing wrong - it doesn't deserve that loyalty.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"My country, right or wrong" on display. Kinda:

"My government can screw me over, lie to me, take my civil rights, do whatever they want, but as long as they classify doing so as "secret", that's okay with me, I don't need to know about it, everything they do is in my interest, I trust them. If anyone TELLS me what the government is doing against their wishes, they're agents of terrorism and should be killed outright!"

Wow.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
but I disagree that whistleblowers should be prosecuted for their "illegal" acts, given the government can claim anything they don't want exposed was done so "illegally".)

They not only can, they DO make such claims.

I should clarify my position here. If we are going to have laws against stealing, then we need to prosecute people who steal. It is the job of the court and jury to decide whether 1) a theft occurred, and 2) the theft was pardonable given the circumstances. I wouldn't use the word justified, but pardonable captures my sense that "yeah, some things are wrong, but we're willing to forgive you for it."

I mean anyone can claim to be a whistleblower when they are actually doing nothing simply stealing secrets and selling them.

Now of course, my sympathies are with Bradley Manning. If I were on the jury, I would refuse to convict him--based on what I know now. But that is a judgment call, one that hopefully a jury will make with wisdom, fairness, and compassion.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:22 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, BUT, CTTS, it's more complex than that. See the thread on the government's case, and let's see what you have to say then.

There are all kinds of complexities; if Assange just accepted the documents and published them, rather than stealing them himself, what do you do about the various newspapers who also published them? There are lots of complexities to this...check out the thread and tell us what you think.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:31 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I mean anyone can claim to be a whistleblower when they are actually doing nothing simply stealing secrets and selling them.

I hadn't heard Wikileaks was selling anything.

That's a rather important distinction you're skipping.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:37 PM

MINCINGBEAST

1) Assange is a repugnant figure, but so long as Wikileaks was not actively involved in Manning's treason, Wikileaks has done nothing that is inconsistent with our broad First Amendment protections.

2) Don't you know that all information wants to be free? All information. I should be able to Google "GOVERNMENT SECRETS!!!" and get government secrets. I should be able to google "Kaneman's anus" and get a picture of Kaneman's anus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 8:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I hadn't heard Wikileaks was selling anything.

That's a rather important distinction you're skipping.

You misunderstood me.

When I said, "Anyone can claim to be a whistleblower..." I mean anyone generically out there, in the past, present, or future. I was not referring to Wikileaks specifically.

My point is that deciding whether someone is a genuine whistleblower is a judgment call. Legally, that judgment should be made by a court and jury.

Personally, I am very much on the side of Wikileaks. But you wouldn't know that unless you have read all my posts on the subject.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
There are all kinds of complexities; if Assange just accepted the documents and published them, rather than stealing them himself, what do you do about the various newspapers who also published them?

My last post was specifically addressing your point on stealing.

Publishers should be protected under free speech protections, period.

Quote:
There are lots of complexities to this...check out the thread and tell us what you think.

I have posted what I think in all threads concerning Wikileaks. You must have missed my posts.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 10:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I see. I guess my own opinion was that I'd hate to see money and time wasted on a whole jury trial to make that distinction on THIS case specifically. Just my belief that "stealing" government secrets for the sole purpose of exposing them shouldn't be prosecutable--maybe except when it's done with deliberate intent to harm the country (which I don't think is at least the MAJOR intent of Wikileaks).

Anyone reminded of "Absent Malice" by all this? Loved that movie...not just 'cuz it was well done, well acted and well written, but for the points it made.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 10:23 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I hadn't heard Wikileaks was selling anything.

That's a rather important distinction you're skipping.
You misunderstood me.

When I said, "Anyone can claim to be a whistleblower..." I mean anyone generically out there, in the past, present, or future. I was not referring to Wikileaks specifically.

My point is that deciding whether someone is a genuine whistleblower is a judgment call. Legally, that judgment should be made by a court and jury.

No, I understood, I just don't agree.

It seems a clear demarcation. If someone is sharing the truth, so that the truth gets out - whistleblower.

If they sell the info or otherwise use it for personal gain - not whistleblower.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Just my belief that "stealing" government secrets for the sole purpose of exposing them shouldn't be prosecutable--

I agree. That is, I hope we pass laws that protect whistleblowers against the govt as well as against corporations. But seeing as the govt has to agree to those laws, I doubt they will be forthcoming.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
It seems a clear demarcation. If someone is sharing the truth, so that the truth gets out - whistleblower.

If they sell the info or otherwise use it for personal gain - not whistleblower.

I don't think it is that simple.

Whistleblowing suggests that some sort of immorality or crime has to be exposed. If someone leaks a "truth" about a new shampoo formula that gives extra long shine, well--that isn't whistleblowing. I think in such cases, motive comes into question.

Wikileaks has exposed a LOT of "truth." Some of this truth is definitely about immoral activities and is obviously whistleblowing. But some of this truth is just gossip or SOP or business as usual. Critics of Wikileaks ask, I think legitimately, "Did that have to be stolen/exposed as well?" Could they have worked harder at redacting names that didn't need to be exposed?

For my part, I feel it was all worth exposing. My position is we shouldn't have those secrets to begin with.

But I think certain critics have a point when they question whether ALL of Wikileaks is whistleblowing or only parts of it is.

There are some shades of gray there.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 1:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Sometimes the law is wrong.

In Theory; this is why we have courts, although these days they ain't much more than a rubber stamp for a guilty verdict, unless you can buy your way out of it.

One reason I ain't chimed in on the morality if it is that sometimes in order to address the abuses of the people who make the rules, you HAVE TO BREAK THOSE RULES - of *course* they're going to make rules to prevent their exposure, or use existing rules in that application, but fuckin A, you wanna talk RULES - read the goddamn Constitution, which this whole bloody government has been in total violation of for well over a hundred years.

So don't go tellin me about rules.
And yeah, verily, this shit is important enough to break em for - never forget, it wasn't FOIA and gifted down from on-high which exposed COINTELPRO, it was outright B&E with Theft as a side order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the
_FBI

So long as you play the card sharpers game, with his deck, at his table, by his rules....
You've no right to bitch when he hands you your ass.
In a rigged game, the only moral, logical, thing to DO is cheat.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 1:32 PM