Wikileaks

rick_chasey

Anyone else LOVING wikileaks? (apart from the Journos obviously, who are largely having their stories written for them..)

Beyond the immediate issue of how much you value national security, anyone else finding them bloody fascinating?

The stuff on Russia is fantastic - and it's great to see how professionals in the diplomatic service report to each other.

I've only scratched ther surface but it's great. Not just the information they part, but seeing how the diplomants work. I haven't even got to all the really juicy stuff yet!

Then you even get the whole (semi) plausible theories about Assange and his arrest, even though he didn't even do the leaking (only hosting the site for the leaks), gov'ts trying to clear up the sh!t and use the storm to re-position themselves internationally, with people discussing the fundamentals of free speech and gov't transparancy, with some pretty serious heavyweights coming in on it.

I'm loving it.

bompington

Yeah, it's all a jolly game, isn't it? Not like anyone's life is at stake or anything.

I'm sure you'd be happy to have your most private conversations spread around the world.

My theory is that Assange has been reading too many trashy novels and thinks he is Stig Blomkvist.

softlad

personally, I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Most of the info is either pretty dull, or pretty irrelevant, or both.

Unless they can come up with some info on major conspiracies like naming Jack the Ripper, or revealing how many of the UK royals supported the Nazis in the 1930s, or blowing the whistle on US/alien co-operation since the late 1800s, then I'm just not interested.

Bases of security interest to the USA = dull
What the Yanks say about the Russians = who cares
The truth about Roswell = now you're talking

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Yeah, it's all a jolly game, isn't it? Not like anyone's life is at stake or anything.

I'm sure you'd be happy to have your most private conversations spread around the world.

My theory is that Assange has been reading too many trashy novels and thinks he is Stig Blomkvist.

Assange is the scape-goat. He's not leaked it has he? He's just hosted the site to disseminate the leak (rather like the Guardian).

The information leaked apparantly was accessible to around 3 million.

But it's more that, now that it's out, you might as well enjoy the information. Information is beautiful, and so is studying sources. Given that democracies have to operate on some level of transparancy (and where to draw the line is a good debate in its own right) - now that the information is out there - it makes sense for people to really understand how their governments operate.

Often, in history, as stuff becomes desclassified, we learn stuff that's fascinating and tells us a lot about how gov'ts operated, thought, and gathered and processed information, from which some people extrapolate some worthwhile stuff about the current politics and issues.. Now, in this little snapshot at least, there's a chance to get an understanding whilst it is still happening. From an intellectual perspective, and indeed others, it's fascinating.

I would also suggest that the "lives at risk" comments were a last minute knee jerk reaction to the information being leaked.

I can't see how anyone could be put at risk with the stuff I've read...

softlad

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can't see how anyone could be put at risk with the stuff I've read...

I could - it might bore them to death....

rick_chasey

softlad wrote:

personally, I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Most of the info is either pretty dull, or pretty irrelevant, or both.

I thought it was fascinating, and pretty relevant!

softlad

Rick Chasey wrote:

Assange is the scape-goat. He's not leaked it has he? He's just hosted the site to disseminate the leak (rather like the Guardian).

Assange is publishing it, which makes him culpable. The Guardian is simply regurgitating it once it is already in the public domain - there is a difference.

rick_chasey

softlad wrote:

Assange is publishing it, which makes him culpable. .

Kevin Rudd would appear to disagree...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... kevin-rudd

softlad

Rick Chasey wrote:

softlad wrote:

personally, I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Most of the info is either pretty dull, or pretty irrelevant, or both.

I thought it was fascinating, and pretty relevant!

it's a bit like reading someone's diary - it might seem fascinating at the time, but ultimately you're none the wiser....

softlad

Rick Chasey wrote:

softlad wrote:

Assange is publishing it, which makes him culpable. .

Kevin Rudd would appear to disagree...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... kevin-rudd

Rudd is a politician - what would he know about it..?

rick_chasey

softlad wrote:

it's a bit like reading someone's diary - it might seem fascinating at the time, but ultimately you're none the wiser....

Fundamentaly disagree with both the analogy and your conculsion..

softlad

Rick Chasey wrote:

softlad wrote:

it's a bit like reading someone's diary - it might seem fascinating at the time, but ultimately you're none the wiser....

Fundamentaly disagree with both the analogy and your conculsion..

I thought you might...

Cleat Eastwood

It does touch on the fundamental issues of free speech and freedom of information and the utter contempt goverments have for the ordinary folk.

Whats fascinating is how little investigation is taking place by the media. The lockerbie bomber transfer is shown to be corrupt, the iraq inquiry shown to be a manipulated mockery of 2 shams of a travesty and shameful cover up over the deaths of innocent civilians in iraq.

I think its widely known that at least one daily and the bbc only employ journalists vetted by mi5, but still, wheres the journo's integrity in search of the truth.

What is good about it all is the collective world wide response; the denial of service attacks on paypal et al. Once you give people information and ask them to make up their own minds....they want more.

What I dont get though is for an intelligent man, why did assange my his condoms at Lidl.

Cleat Eastwood

softlad wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

softlad wrote:

personally, I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Most of the info is either pretty dull, or pretty irrelevant, or both.

I thought it was fascinating, and pretty relevant!

it's a bit like reading someone's diary - it might seem fascinating at the time, but ultimately you're none the wiser....

You need to read them Softlad. THere is one cable from the info released last week that, in its character, highlights a fundamental flaw in US policy. If i can find the number of the document I'll post it. It isnt whats said, its how its said.

rick_chasey

Some of it is surprisingly detailed...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-emba ... nts/212752

Any of the highlighted stuff.

Especially halfway through 7. (s) about the Iranian nulcear international assistance.

tx14

softlad wrote:

personally, I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Most of the info is either pretty dull, or pretty irrelevant, or both.

Unless they can come up with some info on major conspiracies like naming Jack the Ripper, or revealing how many of the UK royals supported the Nazis in the 1930s, or blowing the whistle on US/alien co-operation since the late 1800s, then I'm just not interested.

Bases of security interest to the USA = dull
What the Yanks say about the Russians = who cares
The truth about Roswell = now you're talking

great majority of the internet is dull or offensive or pointless, but there is no valid reason to take them down.

Pross

I do find extradition attempts interesting. Were the allegations against him public before the Wikileaks stuff started? The report I heard the other day is that he will probably be better off getting extradited to Sweden as it will be harder for the US to get hold of him from them than from us thanks to the ridiculously lax extradition laws we now have with the US. Even if he is guilty he has made himself a good case for defending himself if there are enough cynics on the jury prepared to accept a conspiracy theory.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

I do find extradition attempts interesting. Were the allegations against him public before the Wikileaks stuff started? The report I heard the other day is that he will probably be better off getting extradited to Sweden as it will be harder for the US to get hold of him from them than from us thanks to the ridiculously lax extradition laws we now have with the US. Even if he is guilty he has made himself a good case for defending himself if there are enough cynics on the jury prepared to accept a conspiracy theory.

It is interesting.

You'd imagine the US would have known about the leaks before they went public.

The timing is certainly coinicidental.

There is also the issue of whether Assange has actually broken any proper law with regard to the wiki-leak when being director of a site making public something that someone else stole.

I can't really comment on the Swedish charges beyond the timing.

To me at least, it strikes of the US quite successfully deflecting attention away from their own security mistake.

softlad

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

It isnt whats said, its how its said.

I rest my case..

I may change my opinion if I ever read something genuinely 'ground-breaking' on there...

softlad

tx14 wrote:

great majority of the internet is dull or offensive or pointless, but there is no valid reason to take them down.

just to be clear - I couldn't care less if the site stays up or not.

rick_chasey

This article is excellent on it..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... an-assange

The anti-cable camp has veered from predicting harm to a metropolitan shrug that they tell us nothing new. Neither charge is right. In particular, countries with repressive governments and without a free press have a great hunger to read what their rulers have been saying and doing. We should not sneer at the opportunity these cables offer.

Should diplomats be able to speak confidentially with their governments and sources?

The answer is, clearly, yes. Without secret communication there could be no meaningful diplomacy and textured communication between countries... Diplomatic sources deserve protection, too – and it is apparent that the US government must rapidly reconsider the way it exposed the confidences of sensitive sources to a potential audience of millions of Americans cleared to read "secret" material. And if American diplomats must troop around TV studios citing the Vienna convention, which protects diplomatic embassies and communications as "inviolate", then they must do a better job of explaining why Hillary Clinton was recently sending out demands on behalf of the CIA to spy on foreign envoys at the UN and around the world. If the sanctity of the diplomatic bag is to mean anything, it must be a universal value.

Homer J

I personally think it's a storm in a tea cup, the yanks have got egg on their face and they don't like it. I don't know a huge amount of people who are taking any interest in it, let alone anyone who has downloaded and read the info.

pneumatic

Fans of the recent attempt to impose ID cards on us all were fond of saying:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Fans of freedom of information are presumably entitled to use the same phrase to Governments.

I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.

Cleat Eastwood

Seeking to democratise access to information the Bolivian government is now hosting WikiLeaks on its official servers.

Buckled_Rims

I think a lot of this crap Clinton and company are sprouting out about "putting lives at risk" totally ignores the fact the USA will probably bomb a family marriage ceremony in Afghanistan or Pakistan killing far more then wikileaks ever will.

seemunkee

Blogging of the DDOS attacks in support of wikileaks
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/tis- ... ks-editio/

BigG67

pneumatic wrote:

Fans of the recent attempt to impose ID cards on us all were fond of saying:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Fans of freedom of information are presumably entitled to use the same phrase to Governments.

I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.

While I'm generally in support of the rest of your statement calling rape - accused or otherwise - a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.

pneumatic

BigG67 wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

Fans of the recent attempt to impose ID cards on us all were fond of saying:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Fans of freedom of information are presumably entitled to use the same phrase to Governments.

I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.

While I'm generally in support of the rest of your statement calling rape - accused or otherwise - a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.

Fair point; I hadn't really looked into the detail, but if it is that serious, the phrase shouldn't apply.

BigG67

pneumatic wrote:

BigG67 wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

Fans of the recent attempt to impose ID cards on us all were fond of saying:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Fans of freedom of information are presumably entitled to use the same phrase to Governments.

I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.

While I'm generally in support of the rest of your statement calling rape - accused or otherwise - a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.

Fair point; I hadn't really looked into the detail, but if it is that serious, the phrase shouldn't apply.

No worries, I thought it would be borne from a lack of information rather than from a lack of class

rick_chasey

Anyone see the shell news?

bompington

BigG67 wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

Fans of the recent attempt to impose ID cards on us all were fond of saying:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Fans of freedom of information are presumably entitled to use the same phrase to Governments.

I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.

While I'm generally in support of the rest of your statement calling rape - accused or otherwise - a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.

And also, I'm not seeing a lot of (overt) "getting together to pin..." from politicians over the allegations: of course there are people who are inevitably going to flag up anything that makes Assange/Wikileaks look bad, and of course there are bound to be suspicions of dodgy tactics, what with the timing and all, but all I see so far is due legal process originating in a country renowned for respect for human rights.
It goes without saying that it would be spectacularly stupid, futile and counterproductive for the US to try underhand tactics in this case: I've always seen that as evidence against most conspiracy theories, but I guess history teaches us that governments aren't always as rational as they might be in either their goals or the means they use to get there.