Wikileaks - America the land of free speech no more?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

dola

it drives me nuts when i hear this compared to the pentagon papers. it's not even close. the pentagon papers showed the gov't was lying.

this shows... what? nobody likes iran? israel doesn't keep promises? kim jong il is a drunk? well, knock me over with a feather.

this whole thing is just weird.

[jeff061]

Pentagon Papers Ellsberg Supports Wikileaks - Slashdot



Not that it means one thing or another, just what popped to mind.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

this shows... what? nobody likes iran? israel doesn't keep promises? kim jong il is a drunk? well, knock me over with a feather.

At this point, you're actively avoiding real media coverage if you believe this.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

At this point, you're actively avoiding real media coverage if you believe this.

lol. you caught me. i was exaggerating for dramatic effect. ftr, let's take a look at some shitstorm raising info

*Kazakhstan’s defence minister drank himself "into a stupor" and used an anti-corruption campaign to purge his rivals.

*The Prime Minister of Kazakhstan spent an evening dancing "animatedly" by himself on a stage at a fashionable nightclub, according to an Astana-based diplomat.

*Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is referred to as "Hitler" while President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is called a "naked emperor" in the US documents.

*The internet has been rife with speculation about which former Labour minister was labelled “a bit of a hound dog” with women by an American official.

*David Cameron was seen as “lightweight” by Barack Obama after the first meeting between the two leaders, leaked files will show.

*Prince Charles does not command the same respect as the Queen, according to a senior Commonwealth official.

THIS. CHANGES. EVERYTHING.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

yeah but dyncorp is like a merc army in an anti-war film. their wiki page reads like a rap sheet.

and the dancing boy/bacha bazi stuff isn't a revelation either.

So you approve of your tax dollars being invested in this manner then?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So you approve of your tax dollars being invested in this manner then?

no. i'm just sayin dyncorp doing shady shit is not a revelation.

which is my point about all this stuff. it's not news.

edit: there's a pbs:frontline doc called the dancing boys of afghanistan where they hint at the bacha bazi stuff being the cost of doing business with warlords in that region. it came out in april.

[RainMaker]

ACORN needs to have funding taken away. Companies proliferating the rape of young boys do not. Get it straight guys.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

no. i'm just sayin dyncorp doing shady shit is not a revelation.

which is my point about all this stuff. it's not news.

edit: there's a pbs:frontline doc called the dancing boys of afghanistan where they hint at the bacha bazi stuff being the cost of doing business with warlords in that region. it came out in april.

I think I get what you are saying... wikileaks has been releasing this information for years and Iraq war information for months with no press coverage. In fact this isn't the first thread on wikileaks...

WikiLeaks - Front Office Football Central

but you have to admit that most people in the general public don't watch frontline or read non mainstream media. I would say it's getting pretty heavy coverage now and even though people that read and actually follow the news may not think some of this stuff is big once the general public finds out it's a whole different ballgame. Think how long it took for the no weapons of mass destruction or for Cheney outing the CIA agent to hit the mainstream news. I think you are underestimating the "outrage" of the general public once it hits the facebook and twitter crowd.

[RainMaker]

I'm telling you, it's only news now because they started posting shit on banks. As you said, WikiLeaks has been doing this shit for years and no one really cared.

[jeff061]

It became news when they posted the Collateral Murder video in April and has really ramped up with the release of the Bradley Manning leaks. I think Assange has been going after the US so hard simply because over the last several years they weren't getting the news coverage and recognition they were hoping for.

I'm going to have to disagree on the banks influence so far.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by jeff061

He doesn't have sources or relationships. Wikileaks is a website with an upload button. Anyone that wants to leak something to the public anonymously can go there. If you yourself had information you wanted to make public you don't need to know Assange, just goto their site and upload it. What supposedly sets them apart and why they attract submissions is the ability to make sure that your submission can not be tracked back to you.

Then how does WikiLeaks verify the information that is uploaded like they say?

[jeff061]

Don't know. I imagine there are other ways to verify authenticity other than communicating with the leaker.

Edit: It is worth noting they generally keep uploaded items held back from the public for upwards of a year or longer, it's not like they take it and dump it as they come in. There is a process they go through, I'm not sure if that process is public information(the irony of that statement is not lost on me).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Then how does WikiLeaks verify the information that is uploaded like they say?

I posted a link earlier to an FAQ which covers a lot of the common questions about wikileaks including this, at the risk of repeating the post:

Wikileaks FAQ :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It

(gist is they do what they can and also work with a group of news organisations to help - the organisations are listed in the quote below; despite one being an American paper (The New York Times) I have yet to hear anything negative stated about any of the organisations involved - yet surely they are as much responsible for the 'leaks' as wikileaks itself?)

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Linked Article

What news organizations have access to the diplomatic cables and how did they get them?
According to the Associated Press, Wikileaks gave four news organizations (Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian and Der Spiegel) all 251,287 classified documents. The Guardian subsequently shared their trove with The New York Times.

So have all 251,287 documents been released to the public?
No. Each of the five news organizations is hosting the text of at least some of the documents in various forms with or without the relevant metadata (country of origin, classification level, reference ID). The Guardian and Der Spiegel have performed analyses of the metadata of the entire trove, excluding the body text. The Guardian’s analysis is available for download from its website.

Wikileaks itself has released (as of 1:06pm on 7 December 2010) 1095 documents out of the total 251,287. The Associated Press has reported that Wikileaks is only releasing cables in coordination with the actions of the five selected news organizations. Julian Assange made similar statements in an interview with Guardian readers on 3 December 2010. Cables are being released daily as the five news organizations publish articles related to the content.

PS - This method of verifying and releasing the information is interesting and indeed might account for the 'gossip' nature of the releases from the cables somewhat (ie. while wikileaks itself seems to have concentrated mainly on more 'extreme' instances obviously the mainstream media who are now involved are getting good milage/interest out of the gossip they're releasing .... however what confuses me most is if the cables are all with the papers as well as wikileaks why is no one going 'after' the media who are involved, just wikileaks?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

lol. you caught me. i was exaggerating for dramatic effect. ftr, let's take a look at some shitstorm raising info

Oh come on.

- Mideast leaders lobbying for war with Iran
- US spying on the UN
- US stealing Pakistan's uranium over nuclear weapon fears
- Behind-the-scenes bargaining over Guatanamo prisoner destinations
- US outright distrust of Karzai
- Potential confirmation on China's role in hacking Google

That's just a few. And besides, if none of this matters, why does everyone agree the US needs to hunt down Assange and drop a bomb on his head?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

yeah, none of that stuff is new. i could go down the list but a quick google search will show you that stuffs been reported on in some form or fashion in the past couple years.

hell, spying on the u.n. has it's own wikipedia page with topics like: UN officials are regularly spied upon

idk, i'm reserving judgement till i see what else comes out. but right now i think the whole situation is just odd.

[jeff061]

Former WikiLeaks worker: rival site under way - Yahoo! News

Another Wikileaks site on the horizon. Started by the ex-Wikileaks employees that Assange pissed off(for reasons I at least partly agree with). Cat's out of the bag, these will always exist.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

yeah, none of that stuff is new. i could go down the list but a quick google search will show you that stuffs been reported on in some form or fashion in the past couple years.

hell, spying on the u.n. has it's own wikipedia page with topics like: UN officials are regularly spied upon

idk, i'm reserving judgement till i see what else comes out. but right now i think the whole situation is just odd.

Again... what you consider new and what the mainstream media reports are two totally different things. I would love to live in a world where the federal reserve's antics and the backroom deals were part of the nightly news but they just aren't. Sure you can find it all over the place in you look for it and actually take an interest in stuff that really does matter but that really isn't the point. The NY Times and the rest of the "big players" coverage is getting to the 70-80% of the world who don't know what is going out outside of the Karndashians new boyfriends or article #100,000 on how to handle an angry co-worker. Look at the London protests people didn't know this was happening.

[cuervo72]

The protesting because college isn't going to be cheap anymore? They worked those into the nightly news broadcasts.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I posted a link earlier to an FAQ which covers a lot of the common questions about wikileaks including this, at the risk of repeating the post:

Wikileaks FAQ :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It

(gist is they do what they can and also work with a group of news organisations to help - the organisations are listed in the quote below; despite one being an American paper (The New York Times) I have yet to hear anything negative stated about any of the organisations involved - yet surely they are as much responsible for the 'leaks' as wikileaks itself?)



PS - This method of verifying and releasing the information is interesting and indeed might account for the 'gossip' nature of the releases from the cables somewhat (ie. while wikileaks itself seems to have concentrated mainly on more 'extreme' instances obviously the mainstream media who are now involved are getting good milage/interest out of the gossip they're releasing .... however what confuses me most is if the cables are all with the papers as well as wikileaks why is no one going 'after' the media who are involved, just wikileaks?

Thanks for the information. I must of missed it the first time around. You'd have to worry not that any government, business, or organization in regards to securing your information. I'm guessing this will really increase demand in the security IT industry.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The protesting because college isn't going to be cheap anymore? They worked those into the nightly news broadcasts.

I thought there was a wikileaks protest in London. I guess it was in Australia but there is one planned in London as well. Nothing to do with the tuition hikes. And I didn't mean the general public didn't know about the protests. I meant that this information was released months ago but the protests are only starting now because the mainstream media finally decided to cover it. i.e. The General public doesn't follow a lot of what we might think they follow.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Former WikiLeaks worker: rival site under way - Yahoo! News

Another Wikileaks site on the horizon. Started by the ex-Wikileaks employees that Assange pissed off(for reasons I at least partly agree with). Cat's out of the bag, these will always exist.

The "cat" has always been out of the bag to a degree. And always will be, to a degree. When it comes to government secrets being posted on the internet? It will be stopped. A couple of high profile executions for treason will end it real quick. Other countries will do worse.

As for the practice as a whole? Well, look at it this way. You better hope they really can verify EVERYTHING they are saying. One minor screwup and the entire website blows up. They will make a mistake and it will bite them in the ass. Because they aren't vetting these things the way they need to be vetted.

Just a matter of time.

[jeff061]

They can make it more difficult by limiting how many people can access secure documents.

Your credibility argument may pose an issue for a specific site here or there but not for the entire practice. I believe there was actually another leak by Wikileaks last year, before they were as mainstream, that detailed government plans on how to combat them. One way, as you suggested, was to give them false data to discredit them. Hasn't worked so far(for whatever reason) and if it does it will only slow the movement down for a bit.

As long as the internet exists it can't be stopped.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

They can make it more difficult by limiting how many people can access secure documents.

Your credibility argument may pose an issue for a specific site here or there but not for the entire practice. I believe there was actually another leak by Wikileaks last year, before they were as mainstream, that detailed government plans on how to combat them. One way, as you suggested, was to give them false data to discredit them. Hasn't worked so far(for whatever reason) and if it does it will only slow the movement down for a bit.

As long as the internet exists it can't be stopped.

Here is the problem:

The Enquirer gets stuff right all of the time. Does anyone trust it for serious news? No, because they have tons of garbage in it, so the entire newspaper is discredited.

You have to understand, these sites aren't just a threat to the government, they are a threat to the journalism industry. If ONE SINGLE site who engages in this either causes a death or gets one wrong and ruins someones life, it will be on the front page everyday. They can shut down the credibility of the site without even shutting it down.

And we go back to our earlier talk. If you are talking about leaked or stolen documents, there are no shortcuts for verifying the information.

Either you know the source and are engaged in a crime or you spend hundreds of hours fact checking and digging.

I'm sorry, with 10k+ documents in their file at a time, they don't have time to do the second. They just don't. the Rather screwup was made for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is they didn't put in the work. How can these websites afford to put in those hours on each document.

This isn't a question of IF they screwup. It's only which site screws up, when will it happen and how many lives will be ruined in the process.

Once that happens, this type of site will be rare as hell and nobody will buy their crap anyway.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm sorry, with 10k+ documents in their file at a time, they don't have time to do the second. They just don't. the Rather screwup was made for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is they didn't put in the work. How can these websites afford to put in those hours on each document.

As I've mentioned in my prior post there have only been 10,000 released so far due simply to the time required to validate things - its also not just wikileaks validating things, they're using established media outlets to do the validation (and release the leaks).

Yes its possible someone will muck up - but then newspapers do every day, if you check them thoroughly there will normally be a section on retractions and corrections, some of which can be fairly serious to the people/corporations involved.

[RendeR]

Troy remember too, they don't have to verify EVERY SINGLE document.

They have a set amount of information from a given source. They verify a percentage of that data, it becomes a trusted source. For future verification they go on to verify a percentage each time.

There is not an ungodly amount of hours to spend on verification. You keep belaboring this point and its not a really strong one for your argument. Yes there is a lot of verification to do, but its not the world-ending brick wall you make it out to be.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Oh come on.

- Mideast leaders lobbying for war with Iran
- US spying on the UN
- US stealing Pakistan's uranium over nuclear weapon fears
- Behind-the-scenes bargaining over Guatanamo prisoner destinations
- US outright distrust of Karzai
- Potential confirmation on China's role in hacking Google

That's just a few. And besides, if none of this matters, why does everyone agree the US needs to hunt down Assange and drop a bomb on his head?

I'm not really sure that any of this matters.
We knew about all the the back room deals regarding Guantanamo...
We knew the US envoy's distrust of Karzai...didn't we recall our senior UN official or assistant UN official partly due to this?
The China v Google hacking...doesn't really raise many eyebrows. Anyone who this really matters to probably already knew.
I'm pretty sure that everyone who visits the UN understands that the US is going to try and spy on them. Just like we know they are going to try and spy on our envoys when we visit foreign lands. This just confirms what anyone who matters already knew.

The mideast leaders rallying for war against Iran surprised me a little, but I don't really dwell on middle east foreign affairs. For anyone how does, I think this isn't too far of a leap at all. Even those he considers friends know Ahmadinejad is nuts.
I actually missed the bit about the US stealing Uranium from Pakistan, so I'll call that the most intriguing news so far.

This stuff is generally embarrassing, more than damaging. Sneaking secret documents out of a Government building...That is the guy who needs to be strung up, not so much Assange.

[SportsDino]

I'm pro-Wikileaks in concept, but I think they need to not go with wholesale documents and instead make a point of releasing the most important information, carefully edited to preserve individuals. A few red hot articles on key damning material is more important than a bucketload of mostly useless info.

Used strategically, this could be a weapon against injustice being perpetrated by governments on their own citizens. Used like it has been, like a bludgeon, is just a clumsy and potentially dangerous mess, not to mention not targetted enough to register a thought in the hoped for audience. People respond to focused messages more than an information deluge (unfortunately, I personally am very good at sorting through mountains of input, but I've found it a rare trait).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Once that happens, this type of site will be rare as hell and nobody will buy their crap anyway.

I'm afraid you're overestimating the general public.

There's not a shortage of people who could care less if the information is accurate, just so long as they feel like it paints the U.S. in a negative light.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Troy remember too, they don't have to verify EVERY SINGLE document.

They have a set amount of information from a given source. They verify a percentage of that data, it becomes a trusted source. For future verification they go on to verify a percentage each time.

There is not an ungodly amount of hours to spend on verification. You keep belaboring this point and its not a really strong one for your argument. Yes there is a lot of verification to do, but its not the world-ending brick wall you make it out to be.

This would be the WORST thing they could possibly do. Once they trust a source, that source can then backstab them. A government agency will have a person intentionally giving them documents that the government doesn't care gets out, verify those are true, get to the point the source is trusted and WHAM.

There IS an ungodly amount of time verifying information. This is especially true of any "new" organization, because they don't have 50 years of trust built up. If Newsweek makes a major error next week, the only thing that would save it would be the history of the magazine.

Howell Raines lost his job as excutive editor of the NY Times after the Jayson Blair incident.

In a perfect world, reporters screw up. In a world where you are exclusively dealing with stolen/confidential documents that are brutally tough to fact check? Cmon, I'll say it again, it's only a matter of time until the first scandal. And when it comes all sites like it will be painted with the same brush.

I'm not against the concept of WikiLeaks or anything like it. (I am certainly against confidential government documents)

The problem isn't the concept. They've gotten lucky thus far. They will make a misstep at some point. And the results will not be pretty.

[jeff061]

This would be the WORST thing they could possibly do. Once they trust a source, that source can then backstab them. A government agency will have a person intentionally giving them documents that the government doesn't care gets out, verify those are true, get to the point the source is trusted and WHAM.p

I think he was saying you verify a percentage of each leak and trust the rest of that leak. Not trust all future leaks from the same source. Especially since they do not know if future leaks are from the same source or not.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Ron Paul asks five questions about this that get to the heart of the reaction to me.

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

[bhlloy]

Wow, finally something Ron Paul and I can agree on.

I do agree though with the people who think this isn't such a big deal. Get back to me when somebody finds the files on the Kennedy assassination, or the origins of the WMD reporting in Iraq or with conclusive proof about 9/11. We basically have a bunch of semi-embarassing stuff that 98% of is "well, duh". The only thing I can even get semi-surprised/excited about is the mideast leaders considering war vs Iran. Everything else on ML's list is either strongly suspected by the majority or not a huge deal IMO.

As for "what about when this kills a bunch of people", if some semi-professional hackers can get this kind of information you think our enemies didn't have it years ago? If it's easy enough to get that some random person in the Army can walk out of HQ with it, I'm pretty sure the Chinese, Russians and Iranians are all over it already. There seems to be this illusion that without wikileaks we would still be impenetrable, which is pretty laughable to me.

[SirFozzie]

Wow. Documents leak indicating a plan submitted to Bank of America by contracted firms outlining a plan to try to take WikiLeaks down. I have no problem with some of it (for example, submitting false info to destroy the credibility of the site)..

But there's this:

Private Contractors Plan To Protect Bank Of America From WikiLeaks By 'Neutralizing' Glenn Greenwald, Others

Apparently the plan was to attack prominent press supporters of Wikileaks, and make them choose between "professional preservation" and "Cause".

In other words, destroy their careers because they're a public voice supporting WikiLeaks.

Seems like more and more we're slipping down the road to being a corp-ocracy here.

[RainMaker]

I think we've long hit that point in society. Although this is a bit surprising, and scary. Sort of a hollywood movie style story. You have to wonder if at some point with how easily information can be disseminated, if preservation is done through bullets and not destroying careers.

It also brings up another topic which is how a news organization can possibly be unbiased when the companies they report on are the ones in the news. Would CNN touch a story like this if BOA was a prominent advertiser on their network? Heck, would Huffington Post?

[JPhillips]

Julian Assange was arrested by London police today.

[Edward64]

One part of me says great, good riddance and hope he pays for the damage he's caused in a nice, non-white collar jail. The other part of me says, is this a free speech issue?

TBH, as a layman, I'm leaning more towards free speech.

[PilotMan]

In a vacuum I'd agree with free speech, however, when it's timed, and structured in a way that is intended for maximum impact as it's released then it's not. It's something else, a threat perhaps. Snowden got some really important knowledge out into the world about that I think was good to know, but he wasn't trying to do it to benefit a specific group or persons. The way that WL has acted it's clear that they've been operating with other goals in mind.

[Thomkal]

Sorry didn't see the Wikileaks thread before I posted in the Trump thread.



I think arresting Assange has always been a sticky subject here in America because of our free press history. But if he was posting all that he did and/or gave some to Russia to use against us, then I think you have to say he's an enemy of the state. Likewise getting access to classified military documents is not kosher either really. It will be interesting to see how exactly he will be prosecuted. And Trump will likely pardon him because I don't think he's revealed any info on his past/presidency,

[ISiddiqui]

Free speech/press though has always been limited a bit by national security. You can't release classified information, for instance.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Free speech/press though has always been limited a bit by national security. You can't release classified information, for instance.

Agree with this and this guy is a despicable person by all accounts. Yes, he released information on despicable things, but also things that potentially compromised national security so I have a hard time looking at him as a white knight when as PM said he clearly didn't do all this for the good of mankind.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Free speech/press though has always been limited a bit by national security. You can't release classified information, for instance.

Pentagon Papers were classified and leaked. Not sure if wiki leaks is at that level but there is precedence in leaking classified info and being right to leak it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Pentagon Papers were classified and leaked. Not sure if wiki leaks is at that level but there is precedence in leaking classified info and being right to leak it.

That didn't prevent an arrest and investigation to be done againt the leaker (Ellsberg). He was indicted by a grand jury, but charges were dismissed when it was revealed Nixon's White House was doing illegal things to discredit Ellsberg. He was freed due to mistrial, not aquitted of violating the Espionage Act.

[Thomkal]

Trump today about Wiki Leaks:

"I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing."

[RainMaker]

He wasn't charged with leaking national security. He was charged with encouraging hacking which he did do if you read through his communication.

I'm all for free press but there is a line where it becomes criminal. You can't break into someone's house for a story. You can't illegally wiretap someone for a story. And in this case, you can't encourage someone to illegally hack into a computer system.

[Edward64]

No idea if this is accurate, not reported yet in MSM. Not a fan of Assange but will tell him ...

"Don't fall for it. The US can snatch you pretty easily or pressure Mexico to send you here".

Mexico Offers Political Asylum To Julian Assange

Mexico has offered political asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shortly after the US’s request to extradite him was rejected by a judge in the UK.

“It is a triumph of justice. I celebrate that England acted in this way because Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said as he made his offer.

[GrantDawg]

There is a good chance that he gets a pardon from Trump. Trump would love to give another middle finger to the national security people.