Computer Hope
Other => Other => Off topic => Topic started by: kpac on December 07, 2010, 11:13:40 AM
-
What do you think about it?
-
I'm afraid of where this thread might go. Let's try to keep it as apolitical as possible please.
And my feeling is that the site (and Mr. Assange) should be classified as a terrorist organization and treated as enemy combatants.
-
Some considered good and some bad
But certain: Hurricane
-
I'm afraid of where this thread might go. Let's try to keep it as apolitical as possible please.
I don't see how that is possible. The question of what shall be secret, and what shall be known, about the actions of the US (or any other) government, is a deeply political one.
And my feeling is that the site (and Mr. Assange) should be classified as a terrorist organization and treated as enemy combatants.
Mine, on the other hand is that the site and Assange are true friends of democracy. All of the stories emerging from the WikiLeaks material are important public-interest stories. The job of the media is not to protect those in power from embarrassment. Private Manning, who may have leaked these docs, may in fact be a greater defender of democracy than Clinton, Rice, Bush, Obama etc. One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates. For example the leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too. The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam.
I don't know anything about Assange as a person, and I have no thoughts either way about whether he is a rapist or not. I feel that Wikileaks does a lot to strengthen true democracy and I hope they beat the attempts to shut them down.
The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. Look at Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute Cloud the moment the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman ["a US senator who suffers from a terminal case of hubris" - The Guardian] harassed the company over the matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information".
-
my feelings are the same as yours salmon , assange and his followers ( through his site ) are only interested in free speech and democracy. but this does not go down well with a lot of people in public office and they want everything keep from the public ( for their own good ) there is to much that goes on behind closed doors and when something goes wrong they say its not their fault and they get someone else to blame.
the statements i have heard over this have came from american politicians on tv tonight saying that he was a terrorist and his site was a terrorist organization but they also called for his death , how ridiculous and i think that the statements should be looked upon as incitement to hatred and should cover a long jail term.
when someone like them makes a statement the masses follow and repeat it leading to more hatred.
i'm glad we have free press because it brings out all that's bad no matter who they are and no-one can stop it , and also we have a 50 year law were files , letters, e-mails , everything is made public , hiding nothing.
the arrest was politically motivated because this year a hearing in Sweden cleared him because there was no evidence to be found against him.
and in England other people who have been arrested for *censored* crime get bail and their passport is taken off them.
i hope the leaks continue and for the people who are afraid of them coming out it shows their true colors and discredits them.
the leaks show what these people think of others behind their back and they do not like that , but also shows them up for being despicable liars.
-
I'm afraid of where this thread might go. Let's try to keep it as apolitical as possible please.
I had thought of that and I hope it can remain open.
And my feeling is that the site (and Mr. Assange) should be classified as a terrorist organization and treated as enemy combatants.
To be honest, I didn't expect anything else of you, Allan. ;)
For me, I agree with Salmon and Harry.
I also agree with Mr Assange about his suspicions over the Pentagon having something to do with the *censored* abuse cases he's facing. I don't think anything can be done about the site though, there are too many people involved now. The original WL site seems to be offline but there are now about 507 mirrors of the original.
-
I had thought of that and I hope it can remain open.
I intend to watch the thread closely. As long as opinions are stated without personal, political, or nationalist attacks or abusive comments it's fine. But this type of thread is, by its very nature, likely to create dissension and/or animosity and I intend to step in if that occurs. Regardless of the fact this is in the "off topic" forum, this is still primarily a technical site and threads like this are more suited to forums dedicated to politics or world affairs.
-
In this age of advanced technology it should be apparent to all that the opportunity for just about anyone is to be an instant reporter/editor/and paperboy does exist. With that should come a personal sense of propriety and ethical behavior. However as so often is the case the attributes of honesty give way to expediency and bias. It becomes incumbent on all of us when exposed to news regardless of it's source to keep an open mind as to there being other opinions which may be no less valid than our own. If i have any issue with the wikileaks impact it is that it may endanger peoples lives that are mentioned in the releases. Otherwise i do fervently believe that the long term consequences will benefit society as a whole. For the most part those noses that are being tweaked belong to people that are supposed to be servants of the public. It is my observation that often they seem to feel it is the other way around. There are two ways i see this leading:
1. People of power and responsibility will become more aware of the impact of their words and be more thoughtful before making utterances or
2.The emphasis on security and sanctions (against those that would reveal their words) become much more rigorous and the emphasis be largely devoted to enabling a continuance of the way things are done today but with far less likelihood of their becoming public.
A couple of phrases come to mind "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and like respect -trust is earned.
When i first saw this post my inclination was to stay away from it. However i think it has developed well and shows promise. truenorth
-
As long as opinions are stated without personal, political, or nationalist attacks or abusive comments it's fine.
So why did you write this? (Where you nearly go as far as the unspeakable Huckabee in suggesting he be killed):
my feeling is that the site (and Mr. Assange) should be classified as a terrorist organization and treated as enemy combatants.
It seems to me that you are in no position to pontificate and that the other posters to this thread have in fact set you an example in restrained and measured posting.
But this type of thread is, by its very nature, likely to create dissension and/or animosity and I intend to step in if that occurs. Regardless of the fact this is in the "off topic" forum, this is still primarily a technical site and threads like this are more suited to forums dedicated to politics or world affairs.
I really hope that you are not saying that having a conscience or any kind of world view beyond computers is deviant and off-topic for Computer Hope?
-
So why did you write this? (Where you nearly go as far as the unspeakable Huckabee in suggesting he be killed):
First, I clearly meant personal attacks against other posters in this thread.
Second, my role at CH is to help insure forum rules and regulations are followed, not to impose my personal standards (though I'm sure Nathan would like his staff to use our own common sense whenever possible). As to what is or is not deviant and off-topic, here is a quote from the posted forum rules:
Religion and politics
Posts can be made in the off-topic section only about religion and politics as long as they're purely informative and contain no bias.
Last, regarding the above quoted comment from my post: my undergraduate degree is in English and I think I have a pretty fair command of the language. When I want to say something, I say it. Please do not put words in my mouth.
-
Okay. Stop for crying out loud. This isn't a courtroom. This topic was created just for opinions on a certain topical news story at the minute, not to turn into an argument.
-
Okay. Stop for crying out loud. This isn't a courtroom. This topic was created just for opinions on a certain topical news story at the minute, not to turn into an argument.
You're the one who started this thread. What exactly did you expect when you created a topic on what is clearly a highly controversial issue? And so far it hasn't gotten TOOOOO far out of bounds - though it's clearly headed that way.
-
You're the one who started this thread.
Yes, and you were the first one to post a controversial response.
Actually just go ahead and close it, because as long as you're posting it's not going to go too well anyway.
-
Controversial? I posted exactly what you asked for - my opinion on the subject. By definition, any response to your question is going to be controversial. And you're right - I'm going to close the thread before I say something I'll regret!
-
Religion and politics
Posts can be made in the off-topic section only about religion and politics as long as they're purely informative and contain no bias.
Methinks we might need to rephrase this bit somewhat to either allow some freedom on the subjects or to not allow discussion on the matter at all because it's nearly impossible to talk about religion or politics without expressing bias. I personally don't believe in politics or religion, so I've never seen either as a touchy subject, but many people do and they feel compelled to be outspoken about the matters. As long as everyone is respectful of each other and their opinions, I see no harm. That won't last, of course, but it's worth a shot.
-
As long as everyone is respectful of each other and their opinions, I see no harm.
As i've quoted before........
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
When the over-opinionated get power, then most of these kinda topics get locked. Just glad CBMatt is humble enough to let people actually discuss things that he might not agree with.
-
Just glad CBMatt is humble enough to let people actually discuss things that he might not agree with.
...which we can safely say is not what everyone here is doing. ::)
-
I'm still trying to make sense out of Reply #2. What's Hurricane?
Methinks we might need to rephrase this bit somewhat to either allow some freedom on the subjects or to not allow discussion on the matter at all because it's nearly impossible to talk about religion or politics without expressing bias.
you just reminded me of that good ol' Pluto thread, and the many spin-offs that occured since some members didn't know that locking a thread wasn't an necessarily invitation to start a new one on the same subject. Good times. Seems it was deleted though... Oh well.
Re: Wikileaks, the only problem I can see is that it would be far to easy to falsify information and submit it, (from what I can tell from some quick searches). Lies are a lot more believable when they have negative connotations for a politician or senator, and people find it "easier" to believe less reliable sources.
-
Lies are a lot more believable when they have negative connotations for a politician or senator, and people find it "easier" to believe less reliable sources.
That's so true. The 'Conspiracy Bandwagon' must be a good ride. As soon as it rolls though most people jump on, usually without even reading the original documents themselves.
.......but i always think that the best lies are always built around a truth. That's what makes them more believable!
-
I can see it now....a sub-Forum under Off Topic....Conspiracies....
8)
-
Previous speech source. People with similar thought, Eventually.
And with that. There is a difference opinion.
What if the talk was of a different thought - a North Korean. Arabs. Iran.
-
Adding to what I noted before; some might defend the content and say that the government(s) wouldn't be trying to get it shut down if they really were lies; and there might be some truth to that. But I think the basic tenet that is used to defend the site's idea is that the entire concept of democracy, which Canada/US/U.K and other countries generally describe themselves as, is that you have a fundamental right to criticize your government, since they are in effect being paid to represent us to the world, and to govern the development of the nation. And a common theme is that the government trying to close it down is "a hint at true corruption" however, at the same time, you can't just have people going around willy nilly, spreading (possibly) lies about political figures; since somebody may garner enough support to overthrow the government and put something even worse into place *cough* Lenin *cough*; The only thing a revolution needs is the peoples support, and what better way to garner that support then to spread half-truths about those who do have power in order to get some of your own.
Of course, I'm not saying that the founders are trying to take over the world or anything; they probably are doing this out of their own spirit of democracy, but as with anything you can take a right too far. After all, while democracy is often the government that promotes freedom, there are still lines that you cannot cross; you aren't free to kill somebody, for example; theft, etc; some may claim these as natural moral barriers, but they have to be defined in black and white; that is, in effect, the sole problem with any form of government; it's impossible to actually put down in the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution, in black and white, how flexible a right is or exactly how far reaching it is; if a judgement or court tells somebody "no, you've gone to far with that right" it doesn't necessarily mean that we are entering an opressive regime, it could very well mean, that in that instance, despite the fact that the rights/abilities of the person may seem to be black and white, there is a point where you are infringing on others rights; remember that even if they are parts of our government, they are still people protected by our constitutions/charters and have the very same rights as we do; of course, exercising their position to squelch this type of this is somewhat irresponsible, but while any of us "proletariat" can say "oh, I'd never do that myself, I'd be good and honourable" It's really impossible to say what we would truly do in such a situation, especially if we know they are flat out lies and they are being read by millions of people who are simply gobbling it all up. For all we know it's filled with just as many subjective observations and plain old opinions as they are facts; It's a lot easier to fabricate evidence then to find it, especially when your identity is protected. Really all the content has the implicit suggestion that "we got this from a reliable source". If the mainstream news was to report on this, they need more then a pinky-swear that it's legit. (of course, some may suggest at this point that the mainstream media is a puppet of the government, but of course such a claim would require some sort of evidence, something which conspiracies seem to lack except of course in the vague handwavey "well it sort of looks like it might have...." way.)
In fact, in a related manner there is that other topic/poster who was raving about how the Chinese are issueing cyber-terrorism attacks from our printers. Some of their material is from Wikileaks, and from what they quoted being rather inaccurate I rather hope that's not the journalistic quality of all the material found there.
In either case, do I regard these people as criminals or terrorists? I have to say no; specifically, the politicians affected could very well issue defamation of character and other charges against them and take it properly through the courts, as anybody else would have to; abusing their political status to expedite the removal of the information only perpetuates and fuels any number of ludicrous theories, and makes people more likely to believe the content they read there, even that which is questionably reliable. If you read derogatory comments about yourself being read and believed by millions, would you not be angry? Often times, when we are faced with a situation or conflict, we simply react. Sometimes this can lead to empty threats (such as the aforementioned calls for his death) but a immediate reaction is oftentimes an overreaction; if the dog gets in the garbage, some people might say "I'm going to kill you dog!" or something to that effect, but they never actually mean it. Given the fact that despite our desires to believe otherwise politicians are in fact people it's not to over the top to think they might have a human reaction to a situation.
of course, as I believe has been noted in another post, the main problem with the internet is that there is just as much disinformation as there is information; for the most part, the people posting the disinformation aren't doing so on purpose, but rather regurgitating what they read elsewhere; the more extravagant the claim/lie, the more likely it is to spread. However, often the truth isn't quite as exciting. Needless to say the truth is often neglected in favour of a fantastic fiction.
-
I will mildly note in passing that I was interested to read about Congressman Peter King, incoming head of the House homeland security committee. He wrote to Hilary Clinton saying that "Wikileaks appears to meet the legal criteria" of a US-designated terrorist organisation. He urged Mrs Clinton to "work with the Swedish Government to determine the means by which Mr Julian Assange can be brought to justice". This, folks, is the same Peter King who in 2008 joined the campaign to achieve bail for Pol Brennan, a convicted IRA terrorist who had escaped from a British prison in 1983. A prison officer died during the breakout. Brennan was serving a 23 year prison sentence for possessing explosives and firearms. He entered the US on a fake passport and lived there illegally until 2008 when he was arrested for immigration violations. When the US Govt moved to extradite Brennan, King weighed in and seemed determined that he should get a fair shake from the authorities. This is to his credit. Doesn't Assange deserve at least the same? Peter King faced much criticism for his IRA links, which he quickly dropped after 9/11.
-
A basic fact seems to be getting ignored here. In the operation of government, nations need to keep some information secret for security reasons. If such information is leaked, serious damage to the security interests of a country can be the result. And, the leaking of US Embassy Diplomatic Cables was damaging to US security.
Individuals (military or civilian) who are in positions where they have access to sensitive information normally have a top secret security clearance; otherwise, they would not be placed in such a position. In the case of sensitive information exposed on wikileaks, I presume someone (the person(s) responsible for the leaked information) will spend some time in prison, according to the laws of that country.
What can be legally done to a journalistic entity, whether newspaper, radio, TV, or Internet, which obtains such information and totally disregards the impact it will have on a nation's security interests, I do not know. Some of you think such blatant publishing of sensitive information is OK, that it's free speech and democracy. But, freedom of speech does not mean any person or organization who finds themselves in possession of leaked classified information can simply do as they please with it. So, to the extent the government can take action against wikileaks for doing this, I favor it doing so.
-
Precisely Soybean. Freedom of speech is neither absolute nor all inclusive (don't believe it? Try yelling FIRE in a crowded theater - just make sure you have enough money with you to cover bail).
-
wikileaks or its owner are not on the F.B.I lists also they are not on the United Nations list , so he is not a terroist and his site is not a terroist organization and for a politication or any one to make a statement like this without proof is out of order , people should be found guilty in a court of law not on the tv or elsewhere. maybe someone can find them on a list .
Quote
my feeling is that the site (and Mr. Assange) should be classified as a terrorist organization and treated as enemy combatants.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the_fbi/search-fbipersons?mileage=&zipcode=&getCrimeCategory=terrorism&form.button.search=&b_start:int=0&getSex=Male&CustomSearchableText=&getPossibleCountries=GBR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the_fbi/search-fbipersons?mileage=&zipcode=&getCrimeCategory=terrorism&form.button.search=&b_start:int=0&getSex=Male&CustomSearchableText=&getPossibleCountries=USA
-
wikileaks or its owner are not on the F.B.I lists also they are not on the United Nations list , so he is not a terroist and his site is not a terroist organization and for a politication or any one to make a statement like this without proof is out of order , people should be found guilty in a court of law not on the tv or elsewhere. maybe someone can find them on a list .
What you think the list gets people added to it magically? What do you think he meant by "classified as a terrorist organization"? he was saying that they should be added to that very list.
-
What you think the list gets people added to it magically? What do you think he meant by "classified as a terrorist organization"? he was saying that they should be added to that very list.
and i'm big enough to say sorry and that i did not read it right :-[ :'(
i wonder if thats the same as the politications are saying , i must look it up
-
Q :
now
U.S. Population = 310,882,999 (Wikileaks is Terrorist attack )
World Population = 6,886,883,602 (Wikileaks not Terrorist attack )
Piracy: bad work = U.S. Population + World Population
so
Do any of you know the solution of the equation
Wikileaks Terrorist or not ?
Really, I do not know
-
What the <*censored*> are you talking about?
-
Getting close to closing time.........
-
Getting close to closing time.........
Oh sorry, it hasn't been closed yet? There are no grounds to close it...yet at least.
-
Some people (no names, no pack drill) have a somewhat curious attitude to this topic, as if they think the Feds are going to come crashing through CH's front door if it is so much as discussed.
-
Why not let it come to it natural end, a bit like how the majority of topics end?
There are no grounds to close it...yet at least.
-
Why not let it come to it natural end, a bit like how the majority of topics end?
quite right , and then someone will revise it again in a few weeks
-
quite right , and then someone will revise it again in a few weeks
Eh, that seldom happens. Once a topic has received no new posts for a few days, it usually remains quietly in it's place down the list.
If it's going to be allowed to "come to it natural end", I'd say it's time to let that process start.
-
i agree with that but i also agree with kpac above
me signing of on this topic
EDIT: or am i ;)
-
If it's going to be allowed to "come to it natural end", I'd say it's time to let that process start.
Wiki-leaks is still in the news and may yet throw up more things to discuss, but i'm sure you'd prefer to 'sign off' from this topic yourself, instead of having it locked when you've got something to say!
-
True.
-
I think there is plenty about this topic that has not been discussed - for example I read today that the editor of the New York Times has said that the readers comments on the web site were split (1) between the fact that Wikileaks published the classified emails, and (2) what the emails contained, and that more comments focussed on the leak than on the contents. I would guess that outside the US the ratio is reversed. It certainly is here in the UK. One thing is plain - the cat is now well and truly out of the bag, and things will never be the same again. For example, the British public now know just what official America thinks of our country, and also just how much certain British politicians and officials have been ready, nay, eager to bow the knee to Washington. These are uncomfortable facts, and it is no wonder that people over there in the USA feel touchy.
-
signed back in again
salmon i agree with you , i think that most people in Britain think the politicians and officials kowtowed to much to America over the years and also it was mainly tony blair and his clan and mainly over the issue of the war and what lead up to it and its all coming out in the wash now in wikileaks
-
What do you think about it?
Not much.
What I would like to know is how a hacker dump site managed to get accepted by the mainstream in the first place? Evidently everyone thinks it's bad when a hacker steals a persons private information from their own computer since we all have sotware to try to prevent it. Why is it ok to steal from governments and not individual's? Some government somewhere has private information on each and every one of us. Everyone would get upset should a hacker get their private information from a government or corporate database & yet it's ok as long as it's someone elses? Doesn't make sense to me. Stealing is stealing and so is accepting stolen property.
I don't visit WikiLeaks or any other hacker site that I know of and have no intentions of starting now. Wikileaks can try to portray themselves as a modern day Robin Hood all they want to but in reality they are just a bunch of theives and terroists who like to gossip. Anyone care to guess what these same hackers are doing with the personal financial information they are collecting along with what they publish?
-
i may be wrong and i will stand corrected , but if wikileaks hacked into any gov; web site , that would be known in minutes and the hacking would be stopped.
the information was passed to wikileaks who then made all documents safe before they published
-
49M. I do not know where it has come to your thinking that "Wikileaks" is or has been a "hacker". You are misinformed or are making an unfounded accusation as if it were a fact. A major part of the Wikileaks" defense against any forthcoming charges related to their release of material (by the way to the best of my knowledge as of this date no such charges have been laid ) will be that they DID NOT themselves go to the source of the data. They were provided it by another (now in prison)a person that did have the access and took it. That person then passed it on to Wikileaks. With all due respect if you intend to participate in the discussion with credibility it would serve you well to verify your assertions before making them. Certainly at this point enough has been writted and stated re this issue that the information to make credible statements does exist. truenorth
-
I've got to agree with 49M. WikiLeaks may not of done the hacking, but they knew the data was hacked. That's almost like saying that someone that buys a list of credit card numbers from a hacker is innocent.
-
I've got to agree with 49M. WikiLeaks may not of done the hacking, but they knew the data was hacked. That's almost like saying that someone that buys a list of credit card numbers from a hacker is innocent.
my understanding is , the man in jail worked for the gov; where the files where keep and looked after ( in safety and security ) and he copied all the files to disc and walked out with them every night , so pray tell how did he hack and where from , after all the was working on the pc and with the files he always worked on
-
my understanding is , the man in jail worked for the gov; where the files where keep and looked after ( in safety and security ) and he copied all the files to disc and walked out with them every night , so pray tell how did he hack and where from , after all the was working on the pc and with the files he always worked on
It seems that not knowing what they are talking about does not deter some people from posting.
-
It seems that not knowing what they are talking about does not deter some people from posting.
i know salmon , i have done it in the past as well ;D ;D
-
Do you think for a second he had authorization to take those files home? Bottom line is that he stole the files. How he stole the files is irrelevant. How many times have there been posts on this forum that we don't help with illegal activity. Yet a number of people here are condoning theft of government property.
-
QUOTE;WikiLeaks may not of done the hacking, but they knew the data was hacked.
you are the one who said it was hacked
Do you think for a second he had authorization to take those files home? Bottom line is that he stole the files. How he stole the files is irrelevant. How many times have there been posts on this forum that we don't help with illegal activity. Yet a number of people here are condoning theft of government property.
1. i think every poster would agree they were stolen ( but not hacked )
2. you are correct CH will not help with illegal material.
3. no-one is condoning theft of gov; material
4. i think NEARLY everyone is happy its out there and they all believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press
5. i don't know about the states ( but i would think not ) , but britian has a freedom of information law and a 50 year limit on the holding of information and i would be very surprised if and other country had these laws
-
Whether the documents were stolen or not, I would be very happy to know about any corruption in my government.
-
Whether the documents were stolen or not, I would be very happy to know about any corruption in my government.
this is true kpac , look at what the press found out about the expenses of mp's and then it all came out , now 4 mp's might get jail and lots more are no longer mp's
but that is the british press but in another country the press would not do that or the boss's would be warned of
-
It seems to me that you have to weigh two things against each other: on the one side, the badness of breaking the law by making restricted information public, and on the other, the goodness of that information being made public. Clearly this weighing process will give a different result depending on what the information is. Secret military plans that were leaked might endanger soldiers lives and ultimately the very existence of the state. Details of illegal acts committed by a government should be made public. So does information that tells us that a government says one thing in publice and the complete opposite in secret. As the NYT editor noticed, interest in the Wikileaks affair tends to split between the fact of the leak and the things that were leaked. A balanced view, in my opinion, needs to be mindful of both these things. I recommend anybody who is interested to read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks, in particular the "insurance" or "dead man's switch" file, a 1.4 GB file encrypted using AES which they have added to the Afghan War Diary page. Speculation is that if anything happens to Assange, the passphrase will be released. CBS reporter Declan McCullagh has said "What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released."
-
i would say that Assange has protected him self with data and warned people about it and the gov; knows about it.
you might find later or if he is harmed or is jailed you will get all the material related to the gov; thoughts on water boarding and torture and friendly fire deaths , then wait and see the *censored * hit the fan ;D
its great how this topics going and is able to stay open instead of being locked pages ago
-
One of the things that bothered me about the leaked files, besides the fact that they were stolen, is that there appeared to be no sorting out what was embarrassing to politicians, and what could be life threatening.
I'm sure that the military has been through all the leaked files and if any battle plans were in jeopardy, the plans have been changed.
The people at risk, are the Afghans and Iraqis that cooperated with coalition forces, and might be named in the leaked files. Even before WikiLeaks the Taliban targeted those people for execution to intimidate others.
-
there appeared to be no sorting out what was embarrassing to politicians, and what could be life threatening.
There has been selection by Wikileaks; much has been witheld.
The people at risk, are the Afghans and Iraqis that cooperated with coalition forces, and might be named in the leaked files. Even before WikiLeaks the Taliban targeted those people for execution to intimidate others.
Are you trying to say they didn't know the risk they were running by collaborating with the invaders of their country?
-
quote: no sorting out what was embarrassing to politicians
who really cares what is embarrassing to the politicians they deserve all they get in return for being two faced
quote: and what could be life threatening.
i don't think anything like that has come out
quote: if any battle plans were in jeopardy, the plans have been changed.
if i was planning a battle or something the last thing i would do is send secret plans to someone/somewhere to be stored on a pc by someone for peole to read
i would say that mr assange has made sure that no information would get out that could do anyone any harm
the talaban killed who ever they liked for what ever reason , you owned a book , painting , wall picture your dead or loose a hand or foot
-
Anyone remember these guys
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11960045 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11960045)
-
Anyone remember these guys
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11960045 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11960045)
yes , and i think Anonymous are doing a great job hitting all sites that are not for the freedom of speech , these sites are put under pressure by governments etc to stop supporting Wilek's , so what do they expect , Anonymous should start hitting government and politician's sites around the world
-
I find it interesting that so many people liken "democracy" with "the government never keeping secrets from it's people" That isn't necessarily the case. In fact, the only form of government that makes that promise (it never keeps it, but the ideal implementation of the government would) Is Communism. So While everybody is all up in arms about how this "covering up" of politicians having opinions is some sort of vast multinational conspiracy. Meanwhile, for some of the information it's just some leaked copies of E-mails sent between politicians. I'm not surprised that they have opinions; for example if I read a bunch of them saying bad things about Canada, I wouldn't care. Because I'm sure there are plenty of Canadian Politicians both talking to each other about disliking the US or the UK as much as any other country. That's the magic of our forms of government, in that we are allowed to have our own fecking opinions. This includes politicians. Additionally, even though people start going off the handle at the mere hint that their government watches their E-mails, suddenly it's just fine for them to pry into the private affairs of their government officials.
And it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" at all. Do you think that if we had this sort of problem during WWII people would be wondering "well golly gee, he exposed the whole plan to invade Normandy by exposing secret documents, let's all argue about wether he was fighting for democracy, after all it's freedom of speech" No, I'm pretty sure he'd be tried for treason. And *censored* straight as well. The only difference here is there is no real "selection" about which governments are having information leaked. But at the same time, if for whatever reason a large scale war (on the scale of WWI or II) were to break out, both sides would have access to this wealth of information about the other side, because some bunch of idiots decided for themselves that the government had to right to keep that stuff secret. And now everybody's dead thanks to mutual annihilation. So much for freedom of speech. (Ok, yeah, that's an extreme example, but still).
-
Circumstances alter cases. We're not talking about secret war plans here, and, (I know this opinion will be controversial) we are not in the middle of a world war. What was leaked was low-to-medium sensitivity emails from diplomats in US embassies around the world. So we know that they think Prince Andrew is a *censored*, that Catalunya is full of Muslims, etc etc. Embarrassing but not strategically damaging.
-
yes , and i think Anonymous are doing a great job hitting all sites that are not for the freedom of speech , these sites are put under pressure by governments etc to stop supporting Wilek's , so what do they expect , Anonymous should start hitting government and politician's sites around the world
So let me get this straight before i come to an erroneous conclusion...
You saying you support the hack attacks from ANON because they are allegedly "sticking up for Free Speech" ?
If so you may need to revise your thinking on this.
-
I'm pretty sure I refered to WikiLeaks as a hacker dump site. Of course I could be mistaken but that's the impression I get from various newscasts. What difference does it make if they throw in some information that is just stolen? From newscasts and posts here they now have 500 hacker mirror sites with their latest threats worldwide. This is in addition to their "if anything happens to me" threat. Accepting stolen property and blackmailing governments with an army of hackers is real respectable I suppose? We have no more "right" to know everything any government employee says or does than we do our next door neighbor. Why is it ok that these stolen so-called low - medium risk communication's are acceptable to publish? Would any of us want our e-mails or private conversations published? I don't think so. What happens to the high risk communications they have? Are we to believe they are simply safeguarded since these are supposed to be respectable crooks? Blackmail and extortion are what comes to mind, but that's just me. Catch the best person in the world on a bad day & you'll find they aren't perfect just like the rest of us. That's no reason to try to be-little them.
Whistle-blowing to right a wrong is one thing, but attempting to terrorize just because you can is simply wrong.
-
So let me get this straight before i come to an erroneous conclusion...
You saying you support the hack attacks from ANON because they are allegedly "sticking up for Free Speech" ?
If so you may need to revise your thinking on this.
i mean the sites supported wikileaks for how ever long and then as soon as the leaks came out the pressure was put on them all to stop their support.
the pressure came from the same governments,politicans and people that the leaks were about,the same two faced liars who say one thing in public and another in private,the same that if it was between you and them who went to jail or got into trouble you can bet your life it will be you.
only the most secret plans and information should never been seen by the public until its so out of date its no use to anyone , only fit for the bin.
secret plans should be keep in a secure building with only a few people allowed in under the best security money can buy.not in a building where hundreds of people work on hundreds of pc's.
for someone to walk into work with disc's download information and walk out and never searched , some security that is.
but emails,messages,phone calls and the likes are not secret they will cause no harm to national security , the only harm they will do is to the people who said them about other people in the first place.
hence the freedom of information bill and the 50 year law in Britain , people can find out anything really except national secrets.
i do not support hackers and never will and i never said i did , they are trying to show the world what these people have done and what they have said against a lot of countries and people around the world,they have done that now and it should stop.
i also think there is a lot more dirt to come out from wikileaks yet , we have not heard the last , far from it.
the best thing for a person to live by is truth , my brothers and i were all brought up to tell the truth and do no harm and at 65 i have always tried to live by that,i tried to teach my children and now my grandchildren this.
but for a public servant from the leader of a country down to tell lie's to the public and hide the fact they new it was a lie is completely out of order and they should be brought to book for it.
in recent years i think the biggest lie was told by Mr tony Blair in the house of commons , IRAQ has W.M.D and they can strike within 5 minutes and also have lots of chemical weapons ready to launch.
clearly wrong and they were told this by weapon inspectors and the British weapon inspector was taken into the commons and was made out to be a liar , and later he took his own life , this is what lie's can do.
everyone has a different view on every aspect of life and they can agree to disagree , but one thing they should/would/could agree on is right from wrong.
BTW: what does this mean ; If so you may need to revise your thinking on this.
-
I'm pretty sure I refered to WikiLeaks as a hacker dump site. Of course I could be mistaken but that's the impression I get from various newscasts. What difference does it make if they throw in some information that is just stolen? From newscasts and posts here they now have 500 hacker mirror sites with their latest threats worldwide. This is in addition to their "if anything happens to me" threat. Accepting stolen property and blackmailing governments with an army of hackers is real respectable I suppose? We have no more "right" to know everything any government employee says or does than we do our next door neighbor. Why is it ok that these stolen so-called low - medium risk communication's are acceptable to publish? Would any of us want our e-mails or private conversations published? I don't think so. What happens to the high risk communications they have? Are we to believe they are simply safeguarded since these are supposed to be respectable crooks? Blackmail and extortion are what comes to mind, but that's just me. Catch the best person in the world on a bad day & you'll find they aren't perfect just like the rest of us. That's no reason to try to be-little them.
Whistle-blowing to right a wrong is one thing, but attempting to terrorize just because you can is simply wrong.
i have never heard this on any news casts about being a hacker dump site ( what ever that is )
everyones emails , telephone calls , fax's , what ever , is listened to or goes through a goverment pc and key words picked out , there is one of these stations ( maybe more ) in england
your telephone supplier may have to and has done in the past give the gov; a full list of all the people and telephone numbers on their books
-
i mean the sites supported wikileaks for how ever long and then as soon as the leaks came out the pressure was put on them all to stop their support.
What? No pressure was put on any of them, really. Paypal, for example, probably just decided that it was best to avoid any legal issues by simply refusing service. There is a difference. No idea what other "sites" supported them. I have a paypal account, it doesn't mean they "support" me.
the pressure came from the same governments,politicans and people that the leaks were about
No. There was no external "pressure" and if there was any, it came from the lawyers of the companies in question, along the lines of "you might be liable if they are doing anything illegal"
the same two faced liars who say one thing in public and another in private
err... everybody acts and talks different in public and private. It's called etiquette. Kind of like when you see somebody fall down it might be funny but you only laugh when you recall how some imbecile fell on his arse earlier. You don't say it right then. Well, unless you're a jerk.
the same that if it was between you and them who went to jail or got into trouble you can bet your life it will be you.
TDEMSYR. Why the *censored* would it be "between you and them" I mean, seriously, *censored* kind of crazy hypothetical situation are you thinking of? it must as ridiculous as those "if a serial killer came into your house and let you keep only one of your kids which one would you choose" that completely forgets the fact that there is a third choice where you smash the guy over the head with a heavy porcelain vase.
only the most secret plans and information should never been seen by the public until its so out of date its no use to anyone , only fit for the bin.
I'm not even sure what you're saying. should never been seen?
secret plans should be keep in a secure building with only a few people allowed in under the best security money can buy.not in a building where hundreds of people work on hundreds of pc's.
and yet, if they had a news story about "Govt building new underground security base using 50 million pounds of taxpayers money" you'd go on another barely comprehensible rant about nothing in particular.
for someone to walk into work with disc's download information and walk out and never searched , some security that is.
Were you there? really? you were? you know exactly how he got the data? No. you don't. your hypothesizing. For all we know he had a secret data storage device that he stored in a molar or something slightly less extraordinary but equally able to circumvent security. You're really pulling in both directions here; on the one hand you like to complain about how slow and lethargic the governments are and on the other you want them to waste even more money and time imposing more security on these same "secret documents" that you think everybody should see. Seriously could you choose a single argument and at least try to reconcile them so they aren't contradictory?
but emails,messages,phone calls and the likes are not secret they will cause no harm to national security , the only harm they will do is to the people who said them about other people in the first place.
Umm, ok, so you'd be fine having your entire e-mail, posting history, browser navigation history and so forth plopped right onto the net like that? didn't think so. Again, the point is that members of the governing body/party/MLA's and so forth are equally governed and protected by the same laws.
hence the freedom of information bill and the 50 year law in Britain , people can find out anything really except national secrets.
Congratulations. you win a prize for totally not reading the bill before presenting it. I don't even need to look it up to know that it applies to things like the house of commons and other bodies as a whole; it doesn't apply to knowing the private lives of those people who are in those bodies.
i do not support hackers and never will and i never said i did
"Anonymous are doing a great job hitting all sites that are not for the freedom of speech"
and
"Anonymous should start hitting government and politician's sites around the world"
are what? you sure don't like like you're not supporting them there.
they are trying to show the world what these people have done and what they have said against a lot of countries and people around the world
What the *censored* are you talking about? seriously, while it might concern a few tabloids what some random MLA thinks about the U.S, nobody should really care as long as they remember to do their job.
they have done that now and it should stop.
I'm not sure if you're saying the "hacking should stop" or that all government officials are no longer allowed to have opinions.
hey I have an idea, let's create a citizen force, we'll call it the thought police, who will make sure all government officials are completely impartial and don't have personal views on anything, and simply do what the majority of voters say.
of course, if they were to do that, they'd spend the next 50 years fixing roads, and stopping "those bloody skateboarders".
i also think there is a lot more dirt to come out from wikileaks yet , we have not heard the last , far from it.
I also think that is irrelevant.
the best thing for a person to live by is truth , my brothers and i were all brought up to tell the truth and do no harm and at 65 i have always tried to live by that,i tried to teach my children and now my grandchildren this.
there is a fine line between "truth", "made-up *censored* being passed as the truth" and "conspirational truth" the first relies on facts. the second rely on fictions and whimsical fantasy, and the third uses facts and discards any other facts that would make a conspiracy theory more difficult to formulate. And in all three cases you still have to draw a conclusion from those facts. you can't just think "oh no, this one person feels this way about this other country, they are a bad politician" since that's a rather stupid conclusion to come to. it's like saying "oh no, my carpenter is an Orthodox Jew, so he can't make Cabinets" it doesn't make any sense, unless you were a racist bigot.
but for a public servant from the leader of a country down to tell lie's to the public and hide the fact they new it was a lie is completely out of order and they should be brought to book for it.
you're 75 and you are JUST LEARNING THAT POLITICIANS LIE? Must have been dark in that cave.
in recent years i think the biggest lie was told by Mr tony Blair in the house of commons , IRAQ has W.M.D and they can strike within 5 minutes and also have lots of chemical weapons ready to launch.
Except he may very well have believed that himself. Was it True? probably not. but there is a difference between telling a lie and passing on a mistruth. you are again assuming he knew he was lying. He might have. he might not of. It really doesn't matter.
clearly wrong and they were told this by weapon inspectors and the British weapon inspector was taken into the commons and was made out to be a liar , and later he took his own life , this is what lie's can do.
err... so you're saying it's mr.Blairs fault that these inspectors lied and killed themselves or whatever? why did they lie in the first place. You're not really being very coherent here.
but one thing they should/would/could agree on is right from wrong.
That would work great in a whimsical fairy land where morality was a black-and white subject and things were either good or bad. If you steal, it's bad. But what if you're a poor father stealing only to feed their kids? But then what if you were poor because you're a lazy douche? see bad/good/bad, to some people in that order, for the very same actions. Additionally, some people may feel that in the second case the kids should be taken away and put into a foster home or other better environment. Actions cannot be called good/bad or right/wrong directly, their context is equally important, and additionally everybody is going to interpret things differently.
i have never heard this on any news casts about being a hacker dump site ( what ever that is )
you're basing on of your conclusions on news casts?
everyones emails , telephone calls , fax's , what ever , is listened to or goes through a goverment pc and key words picked out , there is one of these stations ( maybe more ) in england
conspiracy alert.
your telephone supplier may have to and has done in the past give the gov; a full list of all the people and telephone numbers on their books
more conspiratorial nonsense.
Seriously, do you really think governments have nothing better to do then listen to Aunt Doris talk to Cousin Sue about how her Nephew is growing up so fast and how she saw a deal on chicken at the shop? Get real.
[/quote]
-
i mean the sites supported wikileaks for how ever long and then as soon as the leaks came out the pressure was put on them all to stop their support.
the pressure came from the same governments,politicans and people that the leaks were about,the same two faced liars who say one thing in public and another in private,the same that if it was between you and them who went to jail or got into trouble you can bet your life it will be you.
only the most secret plans and information should never been seen by the public until its so out of date its no use to anyone , only fit for the bin.
secret plans should be keep in a secure building with only a few people allowed in under the best security money can buy.not in a building where hundreds of people work on hundreds of pc's.
for someone to walk into work with disc's download information and walk out and never searched , some security that is.
but emails,messages,phone calls and the likes are not secret they will cause no harm to national security , the only harm they will do is to the people who said them about other people in the first place.
hence the freedom of information bill and the 50 year law in Britain , people can find out anything really except national secrets.
i do not support hackers and never will and i never said i did , they are trying to show the world what these people have done and what they have said against a lot of countries and people around the world,they have done that now and it should stop.
i also think there is a lot more dirt to come out from wikileaks yet , we have not heard the last , far from it.
the best thing for a person to live by is truth , my brothers and i were all brought up to tell the truth and do no harm and at 65 i have always tried to live by that,i tried to teach my children and now my grandchildren this.
but for a public servant from the leader of a country down to tell lie's to the public and hide the fact they new it was a lie is completely out of order and they should be brought to book for it.
in recent years i think the biggest lie was told by Mr tony Blair in the house of commons , IRAQ has W.M.D and they can strike within 5 minutes and also have lots of chemical weapons ready to launch.
clearly wrong and they were told this by weapon inspectors and the British weapon inspector was taken into the commons and was made out to be a liar , and later he took his own life , this is what lie's can do.
everyone has a different view on every aspect of life and they can agree to disagree , but one thing they should/would/could agree on is right from wrong.
BTW: what does this mean ; If so you may need to revise your thinking on this.
You conviently avoided answering my question...i made it as direct as possible...
-
You conviently avoided answering my question...i made it as direct as possible...
i did patio , half way down
-
Well then if thats your reply then you have either contradicted yourself or painted self into a corner...
-
BC basically just summed about 90% of what I was thinking. I'm too tired to cover the other 10% right now.
-
I wanted to jump in on many of BC's statements (made as if they were fact) but it was just too daunting to do the justice it would have required to deal with them and provide the alternatives of information to refute them. I have only so much time left on the clock of life and i have to prioritize somewhat how much time and effort i can apportion to things. Although by jimminy it is sooooooooo tempting. My personal views on this topic were made at the early part of this thread and while i continue to follow it with great interest and with respect for the opinions of others i still retain my earlier concerns and belief in the ultimate good that will hopefully come from these revelations. I sense that the fundamental differences that seem to be being expressed are largely on the basis of the "degree" of freedom of the press and expression one should be permitted. I think that ultimately if this case comes to a high court that will be the issue to be decided. A very stimulating debate and discussion. truenorth
-
So let ANON run rampant and do what most consider intellectual terrorism and call it a voice for Free Speech ? ?
You guys really need to revisit this and adjust your line of thinking...
PS: On a side note this is why CH has had a basic non political approach thru the years...Because it has no valid space here.
There are plenty of Political Forums you guys can banter on about this Topic ad naseum....but i predict the countdown on this thread has already started...
-
Heck ...i'm tempted to already close it...but then i would be labeled a power-crazy Mod....
I'll let someone else step in...
-
Heck ...i'm tempted to already close it...but then i would be labeled a power-crazy Mod....
I'll let someone else step in...
your not power crazy ;) never have been
-
your not power crazy ;) never have been
*Pulls out hair*
-
so you look like this
[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]
-
::)
-
While we are here.
What do you think of Openleaks?
-
While we are here.
What do you think of Openleaks?
no comment ;D ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLeaks