-
December 7th, 2010, 08:42 PM
#1
Wikileaks
Well, AO has been a little quiet the past few days, so I thought I would try to spark some discussion. Here goes:
Wikileaks: Heroes or Villians?
I personally think what they are doing is a good thing, and that the rape allegations against Assange are part of a blatant smear campaign.
Just my $0.02.
\"Those of us that had been up all night were in no mood for coffee and donuts, we wanted strong drink.\"
-HST
-
December 7th, 2010, 11:39 PM
#2
I suppose it is possible that he has done something, but
it seems way too convenient. The governments that want his
scalp wouldn't be so embarrassed if they didn't have their own
dirty secrets.
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
-
December 8th, 2010, 12:59 PM
#3
The government has no business forcing anybody or anything off line, even if it advocates overthrow of the government.
This guy isn't making up anything. Just making public what has already been said.
Assange is not responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents from the U.S. diplomatic communications network, The U.S. is responsible for not securing that information.
And isn't it interesting that Assange has an old dispute between two women claiming he had unprotected sex against their will - but just now, Assange is (was) interpol's top non-terrorist fugitive?
I will say this, the conspiracy theory numb nuts will be out in force soon.
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B ![big grin](https://antionline.com/images/smilies/biggrin.png) 8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0
-
December 8th, 2010, 03:47 PM
#4
Member
Assange is not responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents from the U.S. diplomatic communications network, The U.S. is responsible for not securing that information.
So i suppose if you leave you car door unlocked and somone steals your radio...you are responsible because you did not 'secure' your car?
Last edited by Phalse; December 8th, 2010 at 05:30 PM.
-
December 8th, 2010, 06:18 PM
#5
I think that Wikileaks idea of freedom of speech reaches a limit with the potential damage that can be done. We all know that zero-day attacks are wonderful to talk about but the ethical responsibility behind some of that stuff goes beyond simple poking around something. I would say that originally, some of the stuff was good to show but when you do seriously put someone(s) life/lives at risk then that exposure makes you just as culpable as the gov't for those lives.
And it's no longer about sharing information for the sake of information.
-
December 8th, 2010, 07:54 PM
#6
It looks like Wikileaks is working with news agencies though, in regards to what information to redact, and what cables to release:
"According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'"
\"Those of us that had been up all night were in no mood for coffee and donuts, we wanted strong drink.\"
-HST
-
December 8th, 2010, 08:31 PM
#7
It seems that the constitution of the US is becoming more and more obsolete. We have freedom of speech, unless it offends or embarrasses. We have the right to privacy, and a defense against unreasonable search and seizure, unless we are flying, traveling, talking on the phone, using a computer, or black. We have the freedom of religion, as long as we don't say anything about it. We have the right to bear arms, in some states. Yes we are free. Wait, no we are not. Oh, and now the government can censor websites if the RIAA thinks there might be a copyright issue. I am sure that wont be abused ![roll eyes (sarcastic)](https://antionline.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.png)
"Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them" - 1984
\"Those of us that had been up all night were in no mood for coffee and donuts, we wanted strong drink.\"
-HST
-
December 8th, 2010, 09:21 PM
#8
![Quote](/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by westin
It seems that the constitution of the US is becoming more and more obsolete. We have freedom of speech, unless it offends or embarrasses. We have the right to privacy, and a defense against unreasonable search and seizure, unless we are flying, traveling, talking on the phone, using a computer, or black. We have the freedom of religion, as long as we don't say anything about it. We have the right to bear arms, in some states. Yes we are free. Wait, no we are not. Oh, and now the government can censor websites if the RIAA thinks there might be a copyright issue. I am sure that wont be abused ![roll eyes (sarcastic)](https://antionline.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.png)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
-
December 8th, 2010, 09:41 PM
#9
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
I didn't say anything about yelling fire. I think the US is mainly ticked off because a bunch of our diplomats and politicians were publicly embarrassed. They are saying that lives were endangered because that will catch the public's attention, and cause outrage towards their intended target. Looks like it is working.
\"Those of us that had been up all night were in no mood for coffee and donuts, we wanted strong drink.\"
-HST
-
December 8th, 2010, 11:04 PM
#10
![Quote](/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by westin
I didn't say anything about yelling fire. I think the US is mainly ticked off because a bunch of our diplomats and politicians were publicly embarrassed. They are saying that lives were endangered because that will catch the public's attention, and cause outrage towards their intended target. Looks like it is working. ![wink](https://antionline.com/images/smilies/wink.png)
Oh.. some of it certainly is about how embarassed they are that "fren-enemies" learn the truth about what the US gossips but some of it may be potentially the "fire in the theater" position.
Similar Threads
-
By phernandez in forum Security News
Replies: 5
Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 02:51 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|