Wikileaks
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone see the shell news?
You mean the 'news' that Shell runs the Nigerian government - does this come as a shock to you..??
TBH, I would be more suprised to learn that they didn't run it......0 -
softlad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone see the shell news?
You mean the 'news' that Shell runs the Nigerian government - does this come as a shock to you..??
TBH, I would be more suprised to learn that they didn't run it......
TBH I'd have thought that an oil company could run a country a bit better0 -
It's not the news that they run it per se that is interesting, but the extent to which it is done, and, most importantly, details on how it is run.
All this "we know it already" just doesn't fly. People suspect and joke, but here is the nitty gritty. You see how it actually works, rather than speculating on how it might.
For example, I was under the impression that shell was only interested in the gov't keeping out of its oil drilling way, and paying people to leave them to it, rather than getting knee deep with the actual day-to-day politics of the ministries.Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries.0 -
It makes me wonder how permiated the UK civil service is by private organisations.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
All this "we know it already" just doesn't fly. People suspect and joke, but here is the nitty gritty. You see how it actually works, rather than speculating on how it might.
what line of business are you in, Rick..?0 -
softlad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
All this "we know it already" just doesn't fly. People suspect and joke, but here is the nitty gritty. You see how it actually works, rather than speculating on how it might.
what line of business are you in, Rick..?
I headhunt senior investment bankers.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
I headhunt senior investment bankers.
ok, my mistake - for some reason I thought you were a civil servant, but I must have been confusing you with someone else. On the basis that you might have been a civil servant, I was going to say that none of this should be a shock to you, but I can't say that now..
0 -
softlad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
I headhunt senior investment bankers.
ok, my mistake - for some reason I thought you were a civil servant, but I must have been confusing you with someone else. On the basis that you might have been a civil servant, I was going to say that none of this should be a shock to you, but I can't say that now..
What it means is that in December, I don't have much work to do...
Can you tell?0 -
bompington wrote:
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.BigG67 wrote:pneumatic wrote:I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.
- a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.
My experience is that, when under reputational attack, people in power will ask the question "what dirt can we find and use against the attacker?" In an information age, I am sure there aren't many of us who could not be embarrassed or worse by something retrievable from our plentiful data records. It may not be as serious as a rape allegation, but could just be how much we spend on booze at tescos or how much time we spend on here when we are supposed to be working!! :shock:0 -
bompington wrote:softlad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone see the shell news?
You mean the 'news' that Shell runs the Nigerian government - does this come as a shock to you..??
TBH, I would be more suprised to learn that they didn't run it......
TBH I'd have thought that an oil company could run a country a bit better
If Shell can sort out a country based on forms of corruption, why didn't the FA ask them to handle our World Cup bid?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:For example, I was under the impression that shell was only interested in the gov't keeping out of its oil drilling way, and paying people to leave them to it, rather than getting knee deep with the actual day-to-day politics of the ministries.Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries.
Actually, Shell have been doing this sort of thing since the early 1970's. They pride themselves on their ability to read the wider context in which they work and they employ people just to do that. For more detail, see the works of Pierre Wack and Peter Schwartz, which, completely coincidentally, I find myself reading this week.0 -
pneumatic wrote:bompington wrote:
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.BigG67 wrote:pneumatic wrote:I must say that politicians getting together to pin a sexual indiscretion on the Assange person seems somewhat pot and kettle too.
- a "sexual indiscretion" isn't really appropriate.
My experience is that, when under reputational attack, people in power will ask the question "what dirt can we find and use against the attacker?" In an information age, I am sure there aren't many of us who could not be embarrassed or worse by something retrievable from our plentiful data records. It may not be as serious as a rape allegation, but could just be how much we spend on booze at tescos or how much time we spend on here when we are supposed to be working!! :shock:
Your experience? Do tell us0 -
bompington wrote:pneumatic wrote:My experience is that, when under reputational attack, people in power will ask the question "what dirt can we find and use against the attacker?"
Your experience? Do tell us
Couldn't possibly, I'm afraid; but let's just say that I've seen it done, done it myself :oops: and had it done to me. I believe it is what corporate America calls "hard ball".
0 -
Fair enough: it's just that "in my experience" on the internet usually means "I've read on other forums". I expect better from this forum, of course...pneumatic wrote:bompington wrote:pneumatic wrote:My experience is that, when under reputational attack, people in power will ask the question "what dirt can we find and use against the attacker?"
Your experience? Do tell us
Couldn't possibly, I'm afraid; but let's just say that I've seen it done, done it myself :oops: and had it done to me. I believe it is what corporate America calls "hard ball".0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
...
I read somewhere that the US knew months in advance what was going to be released?0 -
UpTheWall wrote:
You'd imagine the US would have known about the leaks before they went public.
The timing is certainly coinicidental.
...I read somewhere that the US knew months in advance what was going to be released?
The NSA knew many months ago even before the Iraq leaks.
Up to 3 million Americans had security clearance to access this material. Makes you wonder what else has been copied for personal use only.CAAD9
Kona Jake the Snake
Merlin Malt 40 -
Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
cee wrote:
One of the author's other books is "Discovering Asian Women" :roll:0 -
The thing I find amusing about the whole episode is the hypocrisy at every turn.
Let's start with Wikileaks themselves. According to Wikipedia (not the best source) - "The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified." Why the secrecy? Isn't that against the WL ethos? Or are only other people's secrets wrong?
Then there's the hackers. The irony of the pro-WL hackers calling themselves 'anonymous' and the US patriot anti-WL hackers who otherwise rail against 'big government'.
And finally there's the internet community. Internet boards full of people citing the 'right to freedom of information' (note: no such right. Never has been, never will be), while hiding behind pseudonyms. The Facebook support group - set up and run by people who hide their pages from the public. No secrets, remember?
The biggest support on this thread - Cleat Eastwood. No real name or location given. Doesn't seem like someone truly supporting openness. (By contrast, it's a piece of cake to find out who I really am).
And Rick C - you're find it fascinating (as am I), but it doesn't make it right (I'm not sure you have said it is though). As you work in the banking sector, I'm sure the contents of you company's server would also be fascinating to many, so be a good lad and upload it to Wikileaks so we can all have a look.
(i have nothing against either of you - you just provide handy examples).
The worst thing about this is that the core idea of Wikileaks, as a conduit for genuine whistleblowers, is a good one. But unfortunately Assange's vanity and ego has surpassed ideology as he has shunned editorial discretion in an effort to become a counter culture rockstar.
Ironically, then, that this should be the catalyst to the uncovering his own secrets as some Swedish woman sees him on TV and thinks 'Hang on, that's the Aussie b@stard that raped me'. (He's not being fitted-up by the authorities. There's far more subtle ways to marginalise and undermine him without making him a martyr).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Wikileaks provided nothing new or interesting? Purlease!
Here's a nice little round up:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 54109.html0 -
RichN95 wrote:The thing I find amusing about the whole episode is the hypocrisy at every turn.
Let's start with Wikileaks themselves. According to Wikipedia (not the best source) - "The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified." Why the secrecy? Isn't that against the WL ethos? Or are only other people's secrets wrong?
Then there's the hackers. The irony of the pro-WL hackers calling themselves 'anonymous' and the US patriot anti-WL hackers who otherwise rail against 'big government'.
And finally there's the internet community. Internet boards full of people citing the 'right to freedom of information' (note: no such right. Never has been, never will be), while hiding behind pseudonyms. The Facebook support group - set up and run by people who hide their pages from the public. No secrets, remember?
The biggest support on this thread - Cleat Eastwood. No real name or location given. Doesn't seem like someone truly supporting openness. (By contrast, it's a piece of cake to find out who I really am).
And Rick C - you're find it fascinating (as am I), but it doesn't make it right (I'm not sure you have said it is though). As you work in the banking sector, I'm sure the contents of you company's server would also be fascinating to many, so be a good lad and upload it to Wikileaks so we can all have a look.
(i have nothing against either of you - you just provide handy examples).
The worst thing about this is that the core idea of Wikileaks, as a conduit for genuine whistleblowers, is a good one. But unfortunately Assange's vanity and ego has surpassed ideology as he has shunned editorial discretion in an effort to become a counter culture rockstar.
Ironically, then, that this should be the catalyst to the uncovering his own secrets as some Swedish woman sees him on TV and thinks 'Hang on, that's the Aussie b@stard that raped me'. (He's not being fitted-up by the authorities. There's far more subtle ways to marginalise and undermine him without making him a martyr).
Bingo.
Assange is a self aggrandizing petty thief. A street punk with a following.
His 15 minutes of fame will be over soon enough.
Sooner if he releases documents from Russia or China. But he wouldn't do that, that isn't in keeping with his political aims.0 -
Rich -RichN95 wrote:And Rick C - you're find it fascinating (as am I), but it doesn't make it right (I'm not sure you have said it is though). As you work in the banking sector, I'm sure the contents of you company's server would also be fascinating to many, so be a good lad and upload it to Wikileaks so we can all have a look.
(i have nothing against either of you - you just provide handy examples).
The worst thing about this is that the core idea of Wikileaks, as a conduit for genuine whistleblowers, is a good one. But unfortunately Assange's vanity and ego has surpassed ideology as he has shunned editorial discretion in an effort to become a counter culture rockstar.
Ironically, then, that this should be the catalyst to the uncovering his own secrets as some Swedish woman sees him on TV and thinks 'Hang on, that's the Aussie b@stard that raped me'. (He's not being fitted-up by the authorities. There's far more subtle ways to marginalise and undermine him without making him a martyr).
It probably doesn't make it right, but I do think that it's a nice wakeup for the public to see that their gov't too does shady sh!t, not just the gov'ts of nations the UK isn't keen on. A democracy has to have a reasonable amount of transparancy in order to operate properly, and it's never a bad thing for the public to re-consider how much transparancy they feel is required for a functional democracy.
I don't work in a bank, only for banks, so most of the stuff I get to know isn't very interesting, but even so - I wouldn't bite the hand that feeds - not untill at least I got a new job...
One the outside looking in there's not much to see that is shady, beyond hearsay, and you could probably work out what that was anyway.
As for Assange, as I've said before - it's a reasonably smart move for the US to deflect the issue of their serious lack of security by putting the focus on one individual.0
