wikileaks

[mrmod]

Plus, an interesting read:

WikiLeaks cables: Russian government 'using mafia for its dirty work'

[billy]

you'll end up with a few localised intranets like pirate radio stations of old. the masses will be squeezed in to a shoe box being allowed to only view information they want us to view.

A few localized intranets would probably eventually join to become another large internet. The world wide web is the most common web of computers but that doesn't mean it needs to be the only one.

You can't censor the internet 100%. And if you could, a lot of people wouldn't bother with it then. You can't create a 1984 state, no matter how you try. You can't see into people minds, you can't censor what they are thinking. The same way that if I connect to another computer outside the internet, you can't even know that I'm doing so. All I'm saying is that there's always a way out.


And back on topic. If Assange's charges are for "rape" in Sweden, why would he be extradited to the US?

they would have to censor it almost a 100 percent. they already control the airways in the uk.you create the state run internet by controlling it.

look to china, they control the net, they allow what they want to allow. yes they can use proxies but only because other state aren't as strict.

can you imagine the infrastructure needed to start a new net. can imagine how easy it would be for a state to close it down or monitor it.
the only reason it hasn't happened so far is the fact it's too draconian a measure for the usa to take. if pushed hard enough though they'll say they have no option.

again, i quote what they said about 7 million dead jews, "it will never happen"

i'd say for espionage as a starter or passing on state secrets. to do so is a crime (i think)
they or he (the editor) made the secrets public knowledge.

i can envisage the day when the net is used for commerce and internet banking primarily, along with a few select forms etc.

[billy]

Plus, an interesting read:

WikiLeaks cables: Russian government 'using mafia for its dirty work'

interesting but again nothing new or eye opening. ever since the end of the cold war the russian mafia have been arms agents and seeing as the russian gov are the ones selling their escess it's more than believable the two use each other.

i expect the yanks also use shady people to broker arms deals in order to destabilize foreign powers. just look to Nicaragua where they used the cia.

[mrmod]

i expect the yanks also use shady people to broker arms deals in order to destabilize foreign powers. just look to Nicaragua where they used the cia.

There are leaks that talk about the US considering arms sale to Uganda.

[mrmod]

Hmmm. For what? He's not really done anything for peace. Stupid idea if you ask me.

[billy]

it's am obvious hit back at the usa cables calling mediev and putin;
batman and robin and nato saying the need for a new defence system agianst
russia should it try to attacK a nato state in eastern europe while calling them close friends and allies

[srijantje]

i'm waiting on the ufo leaks,now that might be interesting

[billy]

some of them would be good.

the uk realeased a load of classified ufo docs them a short wile ago. i'll
look up an url later

[srijantje]

yes please

[Duke Skymocker]

Just saw this, figured with all the wikileaks threads it merits mentioning...

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...-openleaks

WikiLeaks not only has to fend off attacks from the outside, it also has dissension from within to grapple with, as former staffers have branched off to form their own whistleblower platform, Openleaks, expected to go live Monday.

The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an account of the upcoming launch, using information from an unnamed source.

It quotes that source: "Our long term goal is to build a strong, transparent platform to support whistleblowers — both in terms of technology and politics — while at the same time encouraging others to start similar projects."

The main difference between the two sites will be the way information will be published to the public. Openleaks will allow whistleblowers to submit documents anonymously and will allow them to choose where the information goes, rather than be the source that publishes it. They'll be the messenger, the go-between. In theory, that will free Openleaks from the political firestorm currently consuming WikiLeaks. Not everyone is convinced it will have that effect.

Openleaks also wants to function more democratically: "As a short-term goal, this is about completing the technical infrastructure and ensuring that the organization continues to be democratically governed by all its members, rather than limited to one group or individual."

Traders in secret information can themselves sometimes get caught up in the intrigue of it all, and the in-fighting that led up to Openleaks is a clear indication of cracks in the WikiLeaks foundation, and perhaps some hypocrisy in not holding itself as accountable as it does the governments it exposes. WikiLeaks seems to be as punitive over supposed leaks within its own organization as much any entity that is the object of its exposure.

This schism is most apparent in an exchange between WikiLeaks detained founder/cyber martyr Julian Assange and the most prominent name in the new endeavor: former WikiLeaks' German spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg, aka Daniel Schmitt.

The two sparred late summer over Assange's investigation of a "serious security breach" of internal conflicts within WikiLeaks being published in Newsweek, while Domscheit-Berg tried to question him over details about WikiLeaks agreements with the media over the release of the Iraq War logs.

The instant message log between the two foreshadows the resignation of Domscheit-Berg and others who left WikiLeaks to create Openleaks.

Assange wrote to Domscheit-Berg: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already brainsorming (sic) whether there might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him.”

Domscheit-Berg responded, "What does that have to do with me? And where is this from?"

Assange continued to question him. "Why do you think it has something to do with you?"

Domscheit-Berg retorted, "Probably because you alleg (sic) this was me, but other than that just about nothing. As discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about. You should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you."

No surprise, this doesn't end well.

"You are not anyone’s king or god," wrote Domscheit-Berg. “And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."

And in the lingo of such an imperious force, Assange fired this at his willful employee: “You are suspended for one month, effective immediately."

Domscheit-Berg: "Haha. Right. Because of what? And who even says that? You? Another adhoc decision?"

Assange: "If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.”

He and other former WikiLeakers will be heard Monday, loud and clear, through Openleaks.

Looks to me like "leaking" is going down the bumpy road piracy's familiar with - websites will come and go, but we're in for a shitstorm of classified data flying around the web. I wonder if Openleaks has already leaked the wikileaks database to themselves, or if they actually intend to start from scratch.

[billy]

i loved this part

"You are not anyone’s king or god," wrote Domscheit-Berg. “And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."

apparently those he works with feel the same way i do about him

---

and i also like this part which shows him to be the twat he is;

And in the lingo of such an imperious force, Assange fired this at his willful employee: “You are suspended for one month, effective immediately."

Domscheit-Berg: "Haha. Right. Because of what? And who even says that? You? Another adhoc decision?"

Assange: "If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.”

He and other former WikiLeakers will be heard Monday, loud and clear, through Openleaks.

[srijantje]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...-lieberman

a must read[i'm democratic about it]]

[billy]

i fucking laughed when i read amazon and those like it will be the downfall of democracy
because it wouldn't allow wicki on it's servers. this tripe gets more tripier with every day that passes.

[billy]

Disappointing Poll: Americans Largely Supportive of Censoring WikiLeaks

Strong Majority Opposes Freedom of Press

what did you expect? what would anyone expect?
everyones talking about freedom of the press and what wiki did with their latest leaks wasn't that. they published private discourse, that had been deemed secret
the public informations acts pertains to;
In 1971 the US Supreme Court vindicated the right to publish classified data in the public interest

the private words related to the jobs of the people whose thoughts and words were of a more than personal nature. the same as if you has an email exchange with someone. the leaks re iraq and afghanistan were arguably classified data in the public interest but even that is something that could be questions.

what did you or anyone else but the enemies those countries who had secret docs think. most (from what i gather) americans feel their country has the right to use secrecy to safeguard the country from outside forces. every country does and when some publishes what they know and think of other states they tend and in my view have a right to get angry.

the leaks in general weren't done in the public interest. they done because some jumped up set of individual think they have the right to say what is and isn't freedom of speech. not one of them would show you his bank detail not one of them would open the files relating to wikileaks and how it gets its information. they are not freedom fighters, they are glory hounds who work on the principle of "do as i say, not as i do" wikileaks dictate what should be said and where, it dictates what should be kept quite and not disclosed. is that freedom of speech or press. they are not un biased. they have shown that. that they hold documents back in order to try and blackmail the usa into not pursuing them proves it, and if they only say they're holding some files back then thats even worse. i'm all for releasing juicy gossip even some of the war files but secrets that can cause one country to turn against another is stupid. secrets that make aware what people know and what they think they know is stupid. when releasing a document sets back public relations between nations, possibly by years, it's stupid. it isn't clever and the very last thing it has anything to do with; is freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

personally i think it;s just dirty laundry thats been released but then again i'm not the one that could possibly have tens of millions of $'s in aid stopped. i'm not the one who'll lose a countries contracting agreements abroad. i'm not the one who'll have their overseas workers abused.
and i'm not the one who as an arsehole for it's spokesperson. rock on julie baby.

[billy]

this is in toto from the wall street journal. this is an oranisation i could easily support if it keeps to the stated principles. it and those who worked with assange show him up to be the cunt he is. a man with an agenda to to undermine the usa government.


Thanks to former top aides to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, we now have transparency about Mr. Assange and his motives. No small irony: The leaks exposing WikiLeaks may spell the end of the organization.

The people who know Mr. Assange best have abandoned WikiLeaks to set up a new service, scheduled to launch today, called OpenLeaks. They pledge that, unlike WikiLeaks, it will be politically neutral. Their goal is transparency, not Mr. Assange's "regime" change in the U.S.

"We want to be a neutral conduit," OpenLeaks founder Daniel Domscheit-Berg tells Forbes. "That's what's most politically sustainable as well." He left WikiLeaks when Mr. Assange insisted on releasing 400,000 classified documents about the war in Iraq without bothering to redact names of informants whose lives WikiLeaks put in danger. He also criticized Mr. Assange for focusing his attention on the U.S.

In essays Mr. Assange wrote before launching WikiLeaks in 2007, he explicitly states that his goal is to restrict how information is shared among government officials, such as intelligence agencies and diplomats, in order to cripple America. As he put it, "An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."

The former WikiLeaks staffers last week told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter that they will operate "without a political agenda except for the dissemination of information to the media." Under this new approach to leaks, "all editorial control and responsibility rests with the publishing organizations," OpenLeaks says. Leakers will designate newspapers or others as recipients, which will then have the responsibility to check facts, avoid harmful disclosures, and provide context about the data.

Having seen the shortcomings of unfiltered leaks, OpenLeaks seems to appreciate the journalistic function of adding understanding about what data mean. "As a result of our intention not to publish any document directly and in our own name, we do not expect to experience the kind of political pressure which WikiLeaks is under at this time," OpenLeaks sources say. "It is quite interesting to see how little of politicians' anger seems directed at the newspapers using WikiLeaks sources."

In other words, OpenLeaks seems to understand the need for some accountable institution to be held responsible for leaks. Mr. Assange's conceit was that no one would be responsible for the actions of WikiLeaks, especially itself. News organizations understand accountability, even if they don't always meet the highest standards, and they routinely apply judgment about how they work with sources and leaked material. If a media organization causes harm in dealing with confidential information, it loses the trust of its audience. This is why editors were so careful with stories based on leaked information such as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

This rival leaks group might have arrived in time to save defenders of Mr. Assange from digging themselves deeper by defending the claim that dumping stolen data is by definition heroic. What Wired magazine calls "Internet vigilantes" last week attacked the online operations of PayPal and MasterCard, which had stopped serving WikiLeaks. The Berkeley City Council considered a resolution declaring alleged leaker Pfc. Bradley Manning a hero.

The OpenLeaks approach is a reminder that whatever else it is, WikiLeaks is not a journalistic enterprise. It simply released unfiltered data provided, legally or not, by others. For that matter, Pfc. Manning is not a whistleblower. To qualify, there must be something to blow a whistle about. There are embarrassing disclosures in reports never intended to be public, but the documents generally show U.S. soldiers and diplomats doing their best.

Some pundits argue that WikiLeaks has replaced journalistic organizations. A measure of how far this is from the truth is to recall how the leaked information became known. Several large newspapers, including the New York Times and the London-based Guardian, collaborated to publicize the WikiLeaks material, even though they had limited discretion over how the information was released.

Under the OpenLeaks approach, news editors will have discretion. They will have to protect innocent people. They should be held to account if, in this new digital world, intelligence agencies stop sharing information or diplomats pull their punches for fear of their routine work being leaked. Unlike Mr. Assange, editors answer to someone, namely readers and viewers.

Media organizations should welcome this role; in an era of mass leaks, news judgment is even more important. Once burned by WikiLeaks, editors should prefer to work with groups, that, as OpenLeaks promises it will do, give them accountability for what becomes public, how it becomes public, and for deciding what information must remain confidential.

[srijantje]

why,if it's so secret,keep these cables at all?

[billy]

have you seen how many of them they're are, you think anyone could remember it all.
some of whats said is a grounds level take on some delicate situations. often these documents are kept for the sake of accountability.
for whatever reason they're kept they're in the main private messages used to understand whats happening around the world and what kind of regimes people are dealing with.

did you get the chance to read the last post i did about assange?

[srijantje]

yes

[billy]

i suppose he'll still be a heroic figure to some.
personally i think this is about the time most of the western world will begin to believe
he's a satanic prince sent from the underworld with the mission of destroying mankind.

[billy]

keep it non personal
discuss the topic and not the person (me)
personally, i think assange is the enemy.
who do you think the enemy is vf. the usa? their gov?
with the new openleaks thats formed i have hope that an unbiased meme will be used when leaking. that it won't be a one man band show. that they realise they aren't journalists or the press. that they are just a portal that whistleblowers can go to and be directed and facilitated to those who have some form of redress should they get it wrong. that they don't lie and say files have been redacted to save the innocent when they haven't (a crime to the truth if ever there were such a crime)

he put himself above wikileaks he put himself above the truth he lyingly said he stood for. he hindered freedom of speech and press. he bastardised it to his own ends he used the truth for personal gain. his ego fed off trying to overthrow the stability of the usa. his own people said as much.

you want him as your hero, fine, for me he's an anti hero. he has nothing heroic about him, he abused his position as editor of what could have been a great site and brought it and himself down. hopefully those in openleaks will have more integrity, more understanding of what openss means and a will to do what they want to in a manner thats beyond reproach