Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cringely Looks at the WikiLeaks Debacle

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the corporate-policy-will-rarely-win-you-votes-for-genius dept.

dtwood writes "Infoworld's Cringely has an interesting take on the Julius Baer bank trying to silence WikiLeaks.org — and how stunningly stupid they've been. 'But the bank's solution is so mind-bogglingly stupid, you have to wonder if these guys need help getting their pants on each morning. First, this is exactly the kind of story bloggers and Net-centric journos crave. Big nasty corporation stomps all over plucky public-serving underdog. Who can resist that plot line? Second, the equation Bank Julius Baer = Money Laundering is now firmly cemented in the minds of everyone who has encountered this story, regardless of whether it's true. Trois: The documents in question, which might have been quickly forgotten alongside the 1.2 million others on the site, are now hotter than the Paris Hilton sex video. Dozens of mirror sites have sprung up, and Cryptome.org and PirateBay have squirreled away copies of the docs for any interested parties. "

6 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Just like the Scientology documents by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a perfect example of the Streisand Effect in action.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
  2. It's always entertaining... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something incriminating ends up online, and you have two options.

    1) Ignore it, and hope that no one notices it.

    2) Try to get it removed, guaranteeing that everyone in the world will hear about it.

    Sadly, this works the same way whether its true or false information...The information trail almost always increases when you try to have something taken down, so while it may have been only 1 data point before, your attempts to bring it down can create many more...In cases like this, a ridiculously large number.

    Probably the best policy is trying to brazen it out...Hardly ever is the information that good...You can always try to laugh it off, but trying to bury it makes it look like you've something to hide.

    I'm not a huge privacy nut, so this doesn't necessarily bother me, but I wonder if a lot of the free-speech/privacy buffs are starting to feel a little worried. When everything is free, even the most trivial stuff can end up online, and it's pretty obvious that once it's there, it's never coming down.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:It's always entertaining... by iamnafets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this idea that having something removed makes it well-known is fallicious at best. There are select few stories covering content being removed that are publicized and the content spread over the entire internet. Meanwhile, there are an uncountable number of things removed from websites every day for legal reasons or for censorship that are simply ignored. The question isn't "ignore it and hope..." or "try to get it removed", it's more of a question "how likely is this to be covered by a major news outlet, and how pissy will they be about it". If there's only a 1% chance that it makes the front page of slashdot, it's not altogether unwise to go for it. Mass publicity does not always follow censorship. And sadly as censorship becomes more prevalent, publicity will die off with the uproar about it.

    2. Re:It's always entertaining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3) Post an informative rebuttal. If necessary, provide evidence of the misinformation; or, if you are indeed guilty of what has been said, post a rational explanation of how/why it happened, and, again, if necessary, an apology.

      You don't need to publicize your rebuttal, however, if it is either incredibly bad or incredibly good, it will get more coverage (or similar coverage) to whatever you are trying to counter. If it's equally silly, it will likely not increase the popularity of either the original information or yours.

    3. Re:It's always entertaining... by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something incriminating ends up online, and you have two options. You have three.

      3. Wash it away in a flood of misleading other information.

      That's what politicians and other people experienced at fooling the general public do. For example, look at when controversial laws are passed, it is often during times where the media's minds are elsewhere.

      I think the CIA and the NSA have the best grip on this. AFAIK there is no word "Uninformation" in their vocabulary, but the words "Disinformation" ranks highly.

      There is no negative to "information", so you can't remove it, mathematically speaking. But you can bury it under more information.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Pirate Bay by thewils · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be surprised if Pirate Bay has "squirreled away" copies of the leaked docs which would be just asking for trouble. It is my understanding that they don't manage content, only links to torrents providing content from elsewhere.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.