Meet the Most Dangerous Man in Cyberspace: The American Face of Wikileaks

Big ego wrote: are they committing crimes? If so then why haven't the NYTIMES or The Guardian been blocked by Visa or Mastercard? Yes they are private organizations and can block anyone.. but... Seems too convenient.

I didn't say they (Wikileaks) were committing crimes. I said that it was apparent to Visa and Mastercard that they were committing crimes.

The NYTIMES and the Guardian just reprinted the info from Wikileaks. The crime was not printing the info. The crimes were possession of stolen goods, and perhaps aiding and abetting the thefts, or maybe financing the thefts, etc., etc.

That, and Oh yeah, perhaps rape...

Visa and Mastercard saw they writing on the wall. Assange had crossed the line between publishing information and committing a crime. He's going down, and they know it. It's just a matter of time.

In reply to Tim Baxter:

Marshall McLuhann had it right -- the medium is the message.

Gutenberg invented the printing press to distribute the bible; which led ultimately to questioning of religious authorty by people such as Luther. Wikki-leaks forces people to ask questions that, ultimately, strengthen freedoms and democracy. Anything that makes the public less apathetic about their rights, or the actions of the government is something to applaud, in my opinion.

SVreX wrote: That, and Oh yeah, perhaps rape...

It might have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but the rape allegations stem from consensual sex Assange had with two co-workers. Sex without a condom in Sweden is "rape" and that's the basis for the allegations.

Why the coworkers reported consensual sex to the police is another interesting matter.

Ramblings...

Have you noticed the new terms being used, Hactivist and Hactivism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
Well, maybe the word is not new but it is the first time that I have seen it.

There seems to be a lot of defaming of the woman who is charging rape. It may be that she is a gov't employee and many believe links to thing that would have her in touch with the CIA.

At the core there is much debate over what is legal and illegal. There seems to be much concern over new laws that will be quickly crafted and then used in arreares as methods of "convicting" Assange.

Knowedge is power, I see the next battle being over who contols the info. My guess is that the internet is going to become a much more confined place - really fast.

I saw an video with statements from one of Assange's lawyers. Based on the questions and answers (none of which had anything to do with rape) it was pretty clear that this whole thing has very little to do with rape. If I held that same press conference I would answer nothing other that questions about the things he has been charged with.

In reply to fifty:

They are referring to it as "Sex by Surprise". I could make jokes about that all day long.

fifty wrote:

SVreX wrote: That, and Oh yeah, perhaps rape...

It might have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but the rape allegations stem from consensual sex Assange had with two co-workers. Sex without a condom in Sweden is "rape" and that's the basis for the allegations. Why the coworkers reported consensual sex to the police is another interesting matter.

Hmm...the news article I read said one told him to wear a condom and he refused and screwed her anyway and the other one he screwed while she was passed out...at a minimum, it sounds like there was imperfect consent to me. But I don't have all the facts...let a jury decide. I still don't see how some folks are jumping to the absurd conclusion that the "all powerful" U.S. government is behind the charges.

These guys remind me of that kid in 'War Games'. They went screwing around, trying to be the BMOC (Big Man On Campus) among their hacker buddies. Now they have unleashed a shi+storm and want to take cover under the laws of the same country they attacked. Sounds hypocritical and awful close to terrorism to me.

With power comes responsibility. These clowns have the power to hack computers and dredge up embarrassing data. So does the NSA and CIA. So which one realizes the sensitivity of such information and chooses not to release it in order to possibly prevent a war? I thought so. Yet Assange is hailed as a hero.

Since the Justice and State departments have a bunch of lawyers, it's time for them to earn their pay and bring this goober down. So what if it doesn't stop future leaks? At least there will be a precedent.

It sounds so 'high road-y' to talk about the ultimate freedom of the Internet. No secrets, etc. But everyone has skeletons in their closets, be they individuals, countries, etc. To all those who say how great it is that Assange and his ilk uncovered and spread all these embarrassing diplomatic cables, etc: how would you like it if he hacked CitiBank or Wells Fargo and then released details of your finances (are you teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?) or family secrets (maybe someone in your family was arrested on charges of incest which were later dropped?) to the entire world?.

Feels a bit different now, doesn't it? So you really really don't want that to happen? I seem to recall a bunch of people on this board pitched a fit over the FBI 'Predator' Email program. There was all kiinds of whooping and screaming about loss of privacy. But Assange et al can steal all this through the back door with impunity? Then they release all this stuff and are called heroes? Nope, sorry. Doesn't work that way. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. To say otherwise is to be a complete hypocrite.

There are also some good reasons to place reasonable limits on freedom of speech, such as the oft used example of hollering 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. Assange has gone far beyond that. His actions could quite possibly lead to deaths. Which he will be directly responsible for. That should completely un-muddle the legal bog Baxter refers to. At that point, the charges for not wearing a condom will look like nothin'.

Worst of all: if his shenanigans accomplish one thing, it will be to make the Internet a much less 'free' place. So if the vise starts closing, y'all might want to think twice about labeling him a hero.

SVreX wrote: The NYTIMES and the Guardian just reprinted the info from Wikileaks. The crime was not printing the info. The crimes were possession of stolen goods, and perhaps aiding and abetting the thefts, or maybe financing the thefts, etc., etc.

aiding and abetting thefts? or financing the thefts? Posession of stolen goods?

Seriously, What they did was add some drama to journalism. Thats pretty much all they did. Wikileaks has done nothing but what a good proper news organization would do.

If you charge Wikileaks with posession of stolen property you must then charge the NY Times or The Guardian. They also posess this information and it is stolen. Remember, we're not talking about actual documents here. If you want to go down the posession of stolen property route, then anyone who has read those papers on wikileaks.com and now has a cached version on their hard drive are in posession of stolen property. How do you delete it or give it back?

Jensenman wrote: some stuff

I think you need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

They are a new organization. Media has changed.

wikileaks neither stole anything nor hacked anything. I don't think you know what wikileaks actually is or does.

I'm sorry but they were handed what were effectively journalistic style leads and the published them.. They are the Bernstein and Woodward of their time. How are they different from those folks?

Sir, you are defending them based on your opinion of them, with no critical thinking at all.

I read your Wiki. There is a lot of negative stuff in it. Some outright proven lies.

You can't pick and choose.

They might very well be the Bernstein and Woodward of today. They might also be the Osama bin Laden.

I'll wait 'till the jury decides.

The fact is that not all information is public record. Period.

Stolen information is theft. Stolen classified information is a breach of security. Stolen top secret information is treason.

Again, I will let the jury decide.

SVreX wrote: The fact is that not all information is public record. Period. Stolen information is theft. Stolen classified information is a breach of security. Stolen top secret information is treason. Again, I will let the jury decide.

so then get the people who stole it.

Not the people who published it... They are a news organization, like the NYtimes. Get a copy of the Times on sunday morning? Opps you're in posession of stolen goods.

Come on.. How do you prosecute him? They can't even figure it out.

The world has changed, Media has changed and the way information is distributed has changed. How much did the RIAA lawsuits against file downloaders stop people from downloading music? Not one bit.

Adapt or die people...

Here's another point of contention that shows how nutty this whole thing is.. Amazon defended the right to publish that child toucher book, It took a concerted effort to get them to yank that book. But they yanked wikileaks super quick. hmm

Again, Big E, you are assuming an awful lot.

If you are right, I will agree. But charges are being filed, and the jury will have to decide. I promise the charges won't be "You published something".

I am only observing that it is very theoretically possible that they participated in the theft of the information.

If all they did was publish it, I'll defend them. But you can't prove it by saying so, or giving Wiki links.

But I won't even consider it until the court cases are settled.

Big ego wrote:

Jensenman wrote: some stuff

I think you need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks They are a new organization. Media has changed. wikileaks neither stole anything nor hacked anything. I don't think you know what wikileaks actually is or does. I'm sorry but they were handed what were effectively journalistic style leads and the published them.. They are the Bernstein and Woodward of their time. How are they different from those folks?

Lemme get this straight: you quote Wikipedia to define WikiLeaks? Oh, the irony. I know exactly what Wikileaks does: publishes what its operators think is most embarrassing.

Anyway, Ellsberg would be in the spot now occupied by Bradley Manning, i.e. he released classified government documents. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers during a war, much as Manning is doing now. Ellsberg was indicted but eventually exonerated. If history shows anything, Ellsberg at least didn't (AFAIK) release 'real time' information which could compromise the lives of others.

Bernstein and Woodward uncovered the Watergate scandal. That was a political scandal, not revealing government secrets. Not the same thing.

Now that history is straightened out, SVreX is right: not all information is public. I refer you to what I posted concerning someone releasing your (possibly very embarrassing) personal information: I bet you wouldn't like it. In fact, there are laws covering libel and slander to address exactly that.

As I said before: what if Bradley Manning or another hacker grabbed your personal information and released it? Until you are willing to let a hacker disseminate your personal information (other than credit cards or other active theft) without screaming for their punishment, you are in the exact same position as the US government.

So no more high horse, OK? Accept that some things should be kept from view.

I'm not prepared to defend a rogue organization disguising itself as a journalistic effort until they are prepared to answer some of the same ethical questions that CNN and other journalists are faced with every day.

Here's a few good questions for WikiLeaks (they are not mine- they were posed by the Center for Journalism Ethics):

Is there any secret information the site would not publish? If so, what is it and why?

Does the site agree there are valid reasons for secrecy in some cases, and if so, what are those cases?

Would WikiLeaks publish NATO codes for protection against nuclear attack? Would it publish the security plans of energy installations or airports against terrorist attack? Would it publish information that would place in danger individuals, informants, or soldiers?

Could WikiLeaks please tell me more about its editorial processes? Since it likely won’t identify who makes the decisions, can it at least explain in detail how it decides what to publish?

Moreover, what is its politics? When WikiLeaks presents data on its web site, does it attempt to be accurate, complete, and fair? And, by the way, whom does WikiLeaks consider an oppressive regime? The USA? China? Iran? Canada? Will the advocates of the site publish secrets from all countries equally, or will they favor reports that support their favored causes or do damage to countries they dislike?

If their site makes a major mistake, to whom should the public complain? How?

If WikiLeaks was prepared to publish a detailed code of ethics that answers these questions (like major news organizations would), they'd get a bit more respect. Until that time, they are faceless cowards.

Let's all jump in the time machine for a few minutes, we will set it for what? 6 weeks ago? and the discovery of the bombs hidden on UPS and FedEx flights. Those were sent from Yemen, at least two were addressed to a Jewish synagogue in Chicago. The ones in England were discovered about 15 minutes before they were to be shipped overseas.

The story went that the information which led to that discovery came from the Saudi government's secret service. So now Assange has released a whole bunch of cables which concern diplomatic traffic with that very same country and organization.

Let's swap the times around, i.e. Assange released these communications and then the bombs were placed on those flights. Say you were a Saudi government official with that information but you had a real good idea that if you were to do so this clown could release diplomatic and other communications which could point right at you. Would you risk your life with that hanging over your head?

No, Manning and Assange are far from being heroes. They are just a couple of self centered self important jerks.

I don't think he's a hero or a villain, nor does he intend to be either. I do think that what he's created was inevitable.

I still don't think that this site is or ever was a great threat to our security. The fact is that any information published on Wikileaks is, obviously, already out in the wild. To assume that our enemies are dependent on it for information is pretty ludicrous - if you really wanted to cause harm with private information, why would you release it publicly instead of directly to the people who can utilize it. If anything, I would think this makes security's job easier by allowing them to see the outflow of information more transparently. Actually knowing what's out there seems to be more advantageous than assuming that you've got things locked down when you really don't.

Interesting how this whole argument wraps up into the whole net neutrality arguments.

It is funny that some people still fail to recognize the internet or anything on it as real or legitimate.

It is real.

In some cases, it is a real threat.

Laws have been playing catch up with the internet since it's inception.

But there are still journalistic ethics. How those will manifest themselves over time in relation to the internet remains to be seen.

But look at my list of questions above. Is there any reason those should not be seriously considered by any journalist, internet or other?

China has a solution to the problem. If enough people embrace carelessness in how they disemminate information on the internet, other countries (including ours) will most certainly take the China approach.

Ethical consideration to what you publish is of utmost importance to a journalist. It separates the quality journalists of character from the self praising thugs and the greedy power mongers.

'Self praising thug'. Excellent description of the subjects involved. As I said, Assange and his ilk have decreed themselves judge, jury and executioner with no thought given to the possible repercussions of their actions. Sounds like a thug to me.

Assuming that Assange can honestly call himself a journalist, sadly we have come a long way from the days of Edward R. Murrow.

Wild stab here - China, Russia and a host of other countries already had the information.

There's such a large volume of users on the "secure" military network and if the security is shaky enough that a high school educated private could download classified files, they probably have plenty of operatives already feeding them the info. Hell, even Israel gets busted for spying on the US every ten years or so - our allies probably have it too :)

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Here's another: http://www.smh.com.au/business/shells-grip-on-nigeria-revealed-wikileaks-20101209-18qth.html

Tim Baxter wrote: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Don't worry guys, we didn't need to know that. Nothing to see here, move along.

nope best all the information stays secret... Palin told me wikileaks is bad.