New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable

The Wikifruitcakes lost my sympathies when I saw the sites they put up as good terrorist targets on the evening news and Al Quiada thanked him for that. A bunch of them are uncomfortably close to my home and family.

I consider this an unwarranted threat to myself and my family. If I could shut him up, I would do so before he posts up my home addy and dares Al Quiada to take me out for no good reason.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your ostensible right to "free speech" ends with your first threat against me, and I don't really care what you think about that. My second amendment rights trump your first amendment rights in that case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please consider whether your fear of al-Qaeda is proportional to the actual threat. Also consider whether living in perfect security is a reasonable expectation, and what sacrifices you would have us all make in terms of freedoms of information and mobility, in pursuit of total security or its facsimile. In my view, controlling fears and aggressions will be more productive in advancing societies than enforcing limitations on the freedom of information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Al Qaeda only exists because of excess secrecy in the West allowing a rogue element in the West to ally with a Rogue element in the Middle East to suppress the emergence of liberal democracy in the Middle East which in turn created the climate for Al Qaeda to emerge.

Post WW2 secrecy has played a significant role in the deaths of more than 10 million people including the deaths of Americans in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the deaths in the USA during 9-11.

Secrecy undermines democracy all over the world and results in the looting of tax money all over the world.

In the short term the loss of secrecy might cost the West more than it gains the West but in the long term like over your children's lifespan, secrecy will cost your children far more and make them more vulnerable than secrecy will protect them.

The the direct results and blow-back from the activities done in secrecy endanger you and your family far more than any advantages the enemy might gain from the loss of secrecy.

For you children and future democracy and prosperity you should be hoping that Wikileaks becomes stronger and hoping for more and more leaks.

You choose, do you want global government "of, by and for" Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Freeport McMoran, other politically active corporations and the Saudi Royal family or do you want governments loyal to the people of their nations.

 

WikiRebels is a recent Swedish-Produced documentary on WikiLeaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvNNeVQOA5s

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27039.htm

In the latter portion of the documentary, there is discussion of the diferences between Assange and some of his associates, which has led to the promising inception of OpenLeaks. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is among the visible founders, who conducts himself more responsibly and thoughtfully than Assange does.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Here's an article introducing OpenLeaks:
DN.se : A new WikiLeaks” revolts against Assange

 

Here's some interesting points (about Sweden in regards to about 8 years ago):

• Sweden has a higher Female to Male ratio than other countries
• Sweden also had a higher case of HIV per capita.

Therefore if anyone should have concerns of HIV, it should technically be Assange if he did actually have "unprotected sex" with both Swedish women.

Some bits on the History of Assange:

• He was originally a Systems Administrator of Suburbia.net and Australian Free speech ISP. (Proff@suburbia.net was the address used on most of his activities along with an automated quotation that would likely be added to the email by one of his own scripts.)
• He worked on a number of projects including NNTPC (a News Cache/Proxy that could strip out relevant filtered information from newsgroups, proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu was his project email address during that period.).
• He also apparently had involvement on the development of the AES encryption standard
• He used various newsgroups to aid in the development of his projects (there are vast archives of discussion on the configuration and tweaks to NNTPC).
• According to historically archived files, He agreed with certain "Hacker Ethics" in regards to Hackers learning, sharing information and helping society as a whole. (Rather than Destructive Hacker archetypes)
• He aided in Research for a book in regards to the Hacker Underground on a website called www.underground-book.com
• He had an interest in various Conspiracies early on. (don't we all?)
• He ran a number of websites (iq.org being one) and likely some Mirrors.

There are other footnotes to this however, for instance various emails related to nerd-speed dating popped up on Gawker (possibly a reason for it's hack?) that put Assange in a light of social ineptitude when dealing with women. (Him about about 2/3rds of the worlds guys.)

[Note]
All information compiled here was 100% publicly available through the use of searching old newsgroup archives and Archive.org. My personal interest is purely Historical backgrounding as there was a potential that a more insidious plot could have existed in regards to Entrapment. If I had found something I would only have to stroll approximate 20 miles in a direction to have a word with the man himself.

 

The definition of irony?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-sex-case-papers/story-e6frg6so-1225973548657

 

It's a definitive example of hypocrisy. A world-class champion of public accountability must be a paragon of personally accountability, and Assange is not up to the challenge. His proclaimed cause -and legal defense for his most profitable source BTW- are of much greater importance than his personal legal jeopardy for sexual misconduct. A sincere civil-rights activist in Assange's position would unflinchingly face these charges (even if trumped up) and also the penalties (even if exswedingly[sub]1[/sub] harsh).


1 -sorry

 

I've been thinking that the more interesting example of "hypocrisy" (which is probably too strong a word, but whatever) is the tension between Assange/Wikileaks' strong rhetoric about freedom and openness of information, and his/their "doomsday file" of supposedly-super-incriminating information that they intentionally hold secret for purposes of leverage. That latter act seems a pretty clear, direct acceptance of the legitimacy of employing organizational secrecy for operational ends, and so raises the question of whether the agenda is freedom of information as such, or something more prosaically political.

I.e., who is Assange to judge which information should be publically released, and which should be held under wraps in order to cow potential opponents of wikileaks?

 

I don't think it's hypocrisy. Callous maybe. But the government owns that information, and within the law, it chooses when to withold and when to release it. The issue here may be they violated some law about disclosure, but having covered government and law enforcement in the past, I can tell you leaking info is fairly common. But again, it's their information.

Hypocrisy is complaining about official information being withheld, stealing it and then bitching when that kind of information about you is published. Assange is a public figure now. Seems he wants the benefits with none of the responsibilities.

A good point, that furthers the irony argument.

Assange, who seems to believe organizational security is tyrannical is nonetheless withholding what he himself has described as important information to further organizational goals. Fuck, isn't that what governments do?

 

Only if Assange heads or represents a large organization.

Does Wikileaks qualify as an organization big enough, and hierarchical enough, to be legitimately comparable to a government or major corporation?

Otherwise:

He is a vulnerable individual, with personal interests and character flaws, in a serious fight with a collection of large organizations and governments. The hypocrisy of defending himself is not directly comparable with the policy of a government.

 

I don't recall either Assange or WikiLeaks stipulating any conditions about "size" or "hierarchy" in their rhetoric. I do recall a lot of categorical statements about the unacceptability of secretive organizations as such, the fundamental need for transparent media, and the essential bankruptcy of perspectives formed in the absense of complete information.

None of which seems to square well with an organization that relies extensively on operational secrecy - from the "Doomsday File," to the measures taken to keep its sources anonymous, to the various other secretive aspects of its operations. The other rhetoric about battling governments and corporations seems much closer to the mark, than the airier stuff about freedom of information.

Those being - except for the "individual" part - the exact same reasons that governments and corporations invoke for secrecy. Which was the point - they aren't really challenging the legitimacy of secrecy as such. They're waging a political campaign to undermine the legitimacy of various organizations that they dislike.

 

Exactly so.

 

I'm sorry, but where is that in wikileaks. And assassination is illegal by Executive Order in the US.

Why not? I thought Lefties like you held Sweden up as the paragon of all that is fair and just and wonderful. Suddenly, it's a terrible place because it is prosecuting your poster boy?

So you want to remove a domestic criminal matter from that nation's court because an entire country is unfit to serve as jurors...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QUIT LYING

I already debunked this myth you keep trying to spread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2661445&postcount=436

No members of our government have been calling for his assassination.

Arthur

 

BS,
Everyone of your links was to TV commentators and journalists.
You haven't provided a single link to where a congressman called for his assassination.

 

Then post something.

I've followed the stories fairly closely and seen nothing about assassinations. Unless, of course, you are making the rhetorical leap that drone attacks are assassinations. They are not.

The people calling for Assange's assassination are all out of government and are journalists and such.

I am not disputing any of this. I am saying that one cannot attack the notion of confendtiality and privilege and then complain a lack of them when a lack of both becomes personally uncomfortable.

Again. Not arguing these points. But I would point out this happens all the time. How much do you know about Kobe Bryant's rape allegation and Tiger Wood's situation, for example, that you shouldn't?

Probably not. Most European countries don't.

You and your ilk have generally lauded European enclaves, such as Sweden, and trashed the US for most of my involvement on this site.

The claim he could not get a fair trial is a claim. Nothing more. And I have no idea what you mean by kick it. Drop the charges? Because of the leak? That's hardly justice.