|
|
|
So, today Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and the one leaking most of its content, was arrested in London at a prearranged meeting and is awaiting extradition to Sweden on rape allegations. Odds are these allegations have no real merit and it's all to keep him silent, if only for a period of time.
For those of you who don't know, Wikileaks is a website that leaks classified and secret documents. They usually are from national governments, but occasionally are from companies and other sources as well (they are currently sitting on information that could "bring down a bank or two" for instance and their next big leak is going to be insurance related). They were the ones who leaked the video of soldiers in an AC130 over Afghanistan firing mortar rounds and machine guns into a village full of civilians and talking as if it was Modern Warfare they were playing.
There's speculation that Assange has finally been arrested over recent comments that he has documents that could be the biggest leak in history. Now, keep in mind that Assange is a PR Master and if he wasn't the most wanted man in the world at the moment, I'd be willing to bet some leader would be paying him in gold bars and diamonds to do PR for them. That said, I can't find the quote I read earlier, but Assange basically said that he had the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in his hands and that it was a "war starter." Poland and the US pledged their support to England and Sweden today with the arrest and any possible details that rise to the surface concerning Russia. Yes, Russia. Assange has said that he has documents that will shake the core of the Kremlin. Perfect.
Now, here is the debate. Are Assange, the Wikileaks teams, and the whistleblowers doing the right thing in leaking these documents? Some are things the public should know (goings on in the Senate, the AC130 attack, and possibly the Bank leak for example) and other things they probably shouldn't (the Kremlin leaks if they are as horrible as he has made them sound and the recent leak of the Pentagon's high priority defense targets within the country). Should the public see these documents?
Wikileaks won't go away with Assange behind bars, by the way. The Wikileaks team has already pledged to continue leaking documents in his absence and that the bank leak will happen after the New Year (likely to save the jobs of the employees of the bank until at least the Holidays are over. Bank is likely Bank of America, btw). In addition, I won't attempt to link to the site as their domain names get taken down every day or so and new ones have to be registered.
Anyway... Wikileaks... good or bad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I overall support what the site does. Government should be far more open (crimes would be far less committed if everyone knew they were being done). Of course I also think that they should be careful on items that could endanger people's lives (bombs away at lifestyles though).
|
|
|
|
|
There are things posted about this on base here and I guess they're monitoring who goes to the website. Which really sucks because I wanna check it out, but it's not really worth my job. 
|
|
|
|
|
I support what they're doing, I just wish they were more careful about not releasing things which just don't show any signs of corruption. Most of the cables they release don't show any signs of foul play. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I overall support what the site does. Government should be far more open (crimes would be far less committed if everyone knew they were being done). Of course I also think that they should be careful on items that could endanger people's lives (bombs away at lifestyles though). I agree here. We do need to know more about the government and the way it operates. Finding out the CIA executed a leader 20 years ago doesn't help anyone because those people who did that are long gone more likely than not. There are things posted about this on base here and I guess they're monitoring who goes to the website. Which really sucks because I wanna check it out, but it's not really worth my job. Yay for censorship, right? Out of curiosity, what kind of rights do you give up in the military? Maybe rights is the wrong word, more like privileges (other than the hair thing, obviously). Also, we shouldn't expect to see you bombing some civilian target from a destroyer one day and acting like it's COD, right? I support what they're doing, I just wish they were more careful about not releasing things which just don't show any signs of corruption. Most of the cables they release don't show any signs of foul play. Does it really have to involve foul play, though? There are things like the way the military operates at times (going back to the AC130 video) that aren't really considered foul play but are still atrocities. Or Gitmo. There really wasn't any corruption there. It was a shitty place, sure, but the torture being done was actually excusable under the rules of war. People just didn't like the idea that we were torturing others. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, don't hate me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was funny that the NBC nightly news just now talked about "the hacker organization that calls itself Anonymous" as it plays backing images of dimly lit rooms with people typing on computers.
As if this hasn't been done before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anon, though. Honestly, I haven't seen a pro-Wikileaks thread on /b/ in months. oO
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take that back. Anon took down the Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, and Sarah Palin websites tonight in response to Assange's arrest and the subsequent account terminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
tbh, if there's any room for havoc to be caused, someone in the internet will wheedle their way into making it a bigger mess, just for funsies, albeit barely relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I never thought they'd cave 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I never thought they'd cave Companies cave to Anon all the time. It's difficult not to when they just keep DDoS'ing your site until you do cave, you know? EDIT: Should also mention that /b/ had various threads going last night on who next to target over this and it looks like the White House website may be next.
Last Edit: Dec 9, 2010 12:29:41 GMT by Josh
|
|
|
|
|
Yay for censorship, right? Out of curiosity, what kind of rights do you give up in the military? Maybe rights is the wrong word, more like privileges (other than the hair thing, obviously). Also, we shouldn't expect to see you bombing some civilian target from a destroyer one day and acting like it's COD, right? Well, I give up a LOT of rights, but I really can't just name them off the top of my head. And there's a lot of shit people aren't supposed to do, but do it anyway. Like on this base, we're not technically allowed to get drunk, but people do it. PDA isn't allowed, but people find ways around it. We have to always have our shaves and haircuts in regulations, must follow all military and civilian laws, and even the clothes we wear when on liberty (at least at this base) is restricted. Offensive clothing isn't allowed, we have to wear belts with any pants that have belt buckles, and stuff like that. But, like I said, these are all rules people break. It's not so much that we give up specific rights so much as the Navy is allowed to revoke virtually any right at any time for any reason. Kinda like your parents when you live with them. Mom and dad say you can't say certain things or you'll get in trouble doesn't mean you still don't have freedom of speech. Same thing here. If I said "fuck America", do you know what kind of shit I could get it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm uncertain about the issue, in terms of which side to support. The internet was intended to be free and should remain so - by all means. Private organizations bowing before the US government's might and dropping support for Wikileaks is unfortunate. The right to express oneself should override all other concerns. Anon's attacks on all the companies that have wagged their tails in front of Uncle Sam was - I'm sure, in their eyes - the right thing to do. But I don't feel that was necessary. Caving in under pressure from a government is silly. The internet is not Uncle Sam's property.
On the flip side, Wikileaks is not a shining beacon of responsible journalism either. A lot of what gets leaked may very well endanger people and exacerbate volatile situations globally. Which is not cool.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm uncertain about the issue, in terms of which side to support. The internet was intended to be free and should remain so - by all means. Private organizations bowing before the US government's might and dropping support for Wikileaks is unfortunate. The right to express oneself should override all other concerns. Anon's attacks on all the companies that have wagged their tails in front of Uncle Sam was - I'm sure, in their eyes - the right thing to do. But I don't feel that was necessary. Caving in under pressure from a government is silly. The internet is not Uncle Sam's property. On the flip side, Wikileaks is not a shining beacon of responsible journalism either. A lot of what gets leaked may very well endanger people and exacerbate volatile situations globally. Which is not cool. S. 3804 S. 3480 Look 'em up.
|
|
|
