Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks To Sell Hugo Chavez' Email
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wikileaks seems to be a bit hard-up for cash, so they're trying a little experiment. They plan to auction off an archive with three years worth of Hugo Chavez' email. The winner will get a period of embargoed access to break any stories they can find in the files, while Wikileaks will later publish the archive in full. Wikileaks plans to use the profits for their legal defense fund, but they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources."
most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources
Then mabye someone else will buy it and break stories?
I guess the difference is that a photographer creates the photograph, but how is this different to paying for, say, the Hitler Diaries?
This stunt will come back to haunt them.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Nearly everyone in the UK gets paid by newspapers for leads and stories :S
In other words, ethics are negotiable. I can't say this impresses me much.
No matter which way you slice it, to breach someone's privacy just to offer the media a convenient fishing trip is ethically unsound. Looks like they might need those funds for their own defence.
Sites like this have a hard time obtaining any sort of revenue to pay for their costs, so it's only logical to allow short-term exclusive access to information in order to maintain site costs and legal expenses. Donations only go so far, and many people are probably afraid of contributing with their credit cards as to not end up on any FBI watch lists.
I'm sure many /.ers will have a problem with this, but how else is wikileaks going to be able to defend themselves from lawsuits designed to shut them down through ridiculous, unpayable court fees?
It's a win-win situation: news sources get profit from being the first to break the story, and wikileaks obtains money to keep their site going and defend freedom of speech while remaining true to their mission.
Wikileaks plans to use the profits for a small but capable force of mercenaries to protect their collective asses.
IFYPFY.
You can attach boosters to anything. It just costs more. -
Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, @12:26PM
They are not doing this to scrape some money together. There is some kind of paradox that newspapers are less interested to invest time if the sources are there for any competitor to see. The free availability makes the perceived value less/zero. So by giving exclusive access to an interested outlet, they are guaranteed a better exposure then when they just would give it to all takers for free.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Yeah. Sad. I know they need cash, but this is a bad idea. LOL if the successful bidder turns out to be Chavez.
this is what happens when you have a site that pushes data data that everybody wants to take a look at, but nobody wants to pay for.
and, of course, its hard to argue you are working for ethical reasons when you are charging money for it as well.
seems like a flawed business model from start to finish really, but many other websites suffer the same.
the only reason this is noteworthy is the nature of the information that they proffer.
He's kicking himself for not using the same email backup system as The Whitehouse.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
When an organisation or individual gets sued over web content, which is the weak part of the chain? ...and the hosting company?
I'm assuming that they would go after the domain registrar and try to get the name pulled?
Does that mean that not all TLDs are equal when it comes to vulnerability to legal action. If you are based wholly outside the US, and get sued in the US does it even matter?
Just some legal related stuff I've been wondering about.
That's not what the movies tell us!
ilovegeorgebush
It's a slippery slope that will eventually lead to something like this.
They got this info from somebody who could have sold it themselves
... pity
They lost their credibility
G
Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist. ..., therefore different morals and ethics.
People have different values, different opinions,
When you formalize ethics you create rules or even law.
"Ethically speaking, ..." ..." or "By law, ..."
Sorry but that doesn't mean anything. You might as well say either "It's my opinion,
But if you want to keep your concept of ethics, fine. In that concept wikileaks is contra-ethics (or at least the ethics of the status quo). Because it's considered unethical to publish this kind of information.
(Personal) Principles are important, considering Wikileaks still intend to publish the documents unedited, anonymously, etc. they're not violating their principles. Nowhere did they ever say that temporary exclusives in exchange for money were out of the question.
Anyway, that's just my opinion.
I tried to find a video of the helicopter hanging from Scarface, which I think is what it could also lead to but I couldn't find it...
MP3 Search Engine
Who are the most likely buyers with huge amounts of money at their disposal? CIA anyone? white house? anyone interested in trying to build a puppet regime in Venezuela maybe?
you solve this by creating the community that will support you. The problem with sites like this is that there are many people who claim to be fans, provided someone or something they don't like is the focus, but they don't donate. They are just riding on the bandwagon because it feels good to be part of something, even anonymously.
the one thing the internet exposes with great frequency is the number of people who want something for nothing. They are all lined up in support until someone asks for money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
'victims' of leaks will not get a chance to respond or refute big stories before they hit the front pages. The site wants no accountability for the information it provides whilst at the same time wanting to reap all the benefits that posting false informaiton can bring.
They may bring in more money but they're leaving themselves open for far worse than lawsuits. They're leaving themselves open to real criminal charges. The second money becomes involved, it can easily become blackmail.
"we have an email saying you did something naughty. If you don't want the press to get it before you can find out if the email is true or not or you want to pre-empt it, just make sure you outbid all the other newspapers"
I don't know what country they're based in but that kind of thing will wind up in a criminal court with the site owners facing years in prison.
"Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist."
Where'd you read that, Nihilism For Dummies? Of course right and wrong and hence ethics exist - in as much as any human mental construct can exist. If you deny that you might as well say that *you* don't exist since you're simply the end result of your brains functioning.
Anyway , your sort of moral relativism has been used to excuse many evil deeds so don't expect many people to share your point of view.
It's not Chavez' email, it's was taken from his aide. This is stated in the very first sentence of TFA. Good lord.
to hear they have to start hocking things for cash.
then again, the lawsuits against them should help lend credence to the fact that wikilinks appears to be uncovering some truths alot of people dont like (the cayman bank article in particular)
Good people go to bed earlier.
That is one hell of a troll post.
http://www.lyricstime.com/dead-kennedys-stealing-people-s-mail-lyrics.html
"Dead Kennedys sue Wikileaks!"
Now that is a headline!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Dear Castro,
Bush sucks. Thanks for the cigars.
Hugs,
Hugo.
PS: No you can't have my Hummer.
We're talking about Hugo Chavez, and Venezuela here. It'll be trivial to figure out which aide's email was leaked.
Someone's gonna get stood up against a wall for the embarrassment to Hugo/Venezuela.
I used to have a good sig...
If you think you're making progress without ethics, I'm glad that your version of 'progress' is being hindered.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Well, that's what bothers me the most: that it's essentially an invitation for anyone, the less reputable and scrupled the better, to use those for a fishing expedition.
Now I'm all for leaks which actually prove _some_ kind of breech of law, contract, or such. You know, take one or two emails out of there that prove Chavez has done anything illegal, and publish or sell only those.
Basically sorta how using a quote from a book to make a point is fair use, but "quoting" the whole book is breech of copyright law.
(And if you think that that's a bad analogy, no, it's not even just an analogy: everything you write, even emails, is automatically copyrighted by you. So essentially they're selling something wholesale, on which that guy and everyone who's ever sent him an email, has a copyright.)
But here you don't even know if there's any incriminating stuff at all in those emails. It's just an invitation to buy them and see if you can find something you can mis-use. Or to put it even better: it's not even selling some newsworthy story, it's just selling someone else's privacy. No more, no less. Maybe incidentally you can find some story material by trawling through his private correspondence, or maybe not, but at the end of the day what remains is that you paid to rape someone's privacy.
And, yeah, it doesn't matter if you're even a reputable news outlet or a news outlet at all. Conceivably even some spammer could buy them to harvest all email addresses in there. Or someone could buy them and see if they can find any blackmail material in there. Maybe not even as much against Chavez, as against some random politician who's mentioned taking a vacation for some medical condition in an email to Chavez. Or anything else.
I don't know... it seems an absolute low. It seems like the kind of thing only a complete scumbag would even think about doing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources.
I'm sure if there is some emails between Obama and Chavez there, a reputable news outlet such as Fox News would be willing to pay...
oh wait!
@neonux
Oh of course whomever set up his email program knew the difference. And not just Bush, but 50 people in the Whitehouse. This was a cheap runaround to the Presidential Records Act. While it was a cheap shot, it was also effective. Millions of emails 'lost', subpeonas to turn emails over ignored - ahhh, the Executive Branch must love all the extra power they've gained over the past 8 years.
Now think again, hard. You say "ethics can not exist. ..., therefore different morals and ethics.
People have different values, different opinions,
Which is it ? Ethics don't exist, there is no right or wrong and people making choices all the time is actually pure nonsense, including your own urge to write a comment about how no such thing as good or bad exists ; or they do exist and everyone has some of their own ?
See, the very fact that there are things you do and things you don't establishes a sense of right and wrong of your own, just like in everyone - and that's very sufficient to formalize the whole thing and prove you wrong.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.
Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:
Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.
The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/
Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs: ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos
Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964
Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp
And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch
And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only
which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations
That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.
Agreed. Slightly OT, but I'd like to elaborate on what you wrote; it reminds me of a definition I'd heard:
Honesty: The absence of the intent to deceive.
I can be utterly truthful but still be dishonest. For example:
One would be excused for THINKING I had some kind of "nasty bug", but that WAS NOT stated. A hangover from heavy and late drinking the night before could also be covered by this example. So, just because each sentence in the example was *true* does not mean that the entire comment was *honest*.
WTF.
worth of Hugo Chavez' email.
It's bad enough when people throw in an apostrophe for no reason when a word ends in s. I can at least see the logic. "Oh golly gee, this word ends in an s, I probably need an apostrophe." This is, obviously, not how you decide if an apostrophe is needed, but at least it's closer than what this person did.
For the uninitiated, the following is correct usage:
worth of Hugo Chavez's email.
At this point in the game of battling bad grammar and usage, I'll offer some extremely oversimplified rules for possessive apostrophe usage:
1. Regardless of what the word is or how it ends, if it's singular to make it possessive you add an apostrophe and an S. E.G. "the abacus's beads" or "the Nazi's obsessiveness".
2. Regardless of what the word is or how it ends, if it is pluralized by adding an S or ES, simply add an apostrophe to the end of the word to make it possessive. E.G. "all of the abacuses' owners" "the Nazis' collective obsessions".
Note: For my fellow Nazis who may try catch me on something: Abacus can be pluralized as abacuses or abaci. Also, please forgive any typos and use of passive voice.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
"Proof that the stated reason for needing to invade Iran is a hoax and that the Western Media and Government are lying, blood-thirsty, psychotic tools. I'll sell the info to the highest bidder."
On the surface, such a statement appears disgusting.
The ONLY logic I can see here, (assuming that the Wikileaks guys aren't a bunch of sell-outs which seems inconsistent with their sole reason for existing), is that Wikileaks is gaming the system for mind-share.
It will be interesting to see how this move affects awareness of Venezuela on the global chess board. --Um, no. Correction. The world is too brain-damaged at this point for chess. At this point, it's just the global checker board. South America is next in line to be 'jumped' by the Empire.
-FL
Even if it was all right to publicize someone's email, it would still really go against' Wikileaks' ways to actually sell it, this makes no sense.
This is ridiculous, wikileaks
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Wikileaks already explained in wired that they plan to abandon the wiki model, and also let journalists pay to get news before everyone else.
I really felt let down, so I went to their live chat to ask about it; they said that the subscription model was a way to keep good relations with journalists, and that abandoning the wiki model was because the first version of the articles (made by wikileaks staff) were always "of a superior quality". (since the chat was anonymous, it is hard to make this attribution; but they can always deny it later if it isn't true I guess). Instead the users would be able to leave comments about the articles. Also,recall that the really important decisions, like what material gets published, where always handled by wikileaks staff.
- I kinda understand the head start given to journalists, except it's not very 21rst century to draw a line between "real" journalists and others. Anyways, charging money for that subscription is not going to make any suspicion go away.
- Abandoning the wiki model is really losing the core good idea of this website. Remember, they are an anonymous bunch of people; I just don't feel I can trust them with choosing what should be or not be published, let alone say they don't want a single comma changed in their article because they like their own version better.
I think at this point, they must change their name; any link to a "wiki" process is fake advertising ( and they admit that most of their initial visibility was due to people knowing wikipedia). They will end up giving open source politics a bad name at the first scandal.
And its a shame, because it was really the most fascinating thing I ever saw on the internet; and I have high hopes for a real open information website like this some day.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
I can't for a moment imagine that Wikileaks would have dared try this if this was email from the US President. As much as they've avoided the courts in the past (and with good reason), trying this with a blanket dump of US government email would have them shut down in a flash, surely? Or have I missed them doing this already. In any case, they can get away with selling the private email of Hugo Chavez because, well, he's not exactly a personal friend of a lot of Western governments. This smacks of hypocrisy. Ethically and reasonably, they've not got a leg to stand on. Moreover, it's got to be completely illegal. Leaking important information is one thing, selling someone's recent correspondence is another. What's to stop them selling *your* email?
Most "reputable" news outlets have policies against admitting that they pay sources.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"Wikileaks...may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources."
A cynic might suggest that the policies of "reputable news media" have more to do with refusing to admit they pay sources than with what actually happens behind closed doors.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
How about Hugo Chavez buying it back?
I'll give anyone $1M for G.W. Bush's email.
No need to be something incriminating or illegal ... if there is something meant to be personal and private, or just embarrasing there, looks like a call for "pay, or else i will sell this to the press".
Wonder what would happen the second after they announce the same for George W. Bush's mails.
I'm Venezuelan and I live in Venezuela. I find it terrible what they're doing, all that information that they have could be used to build a case of human rights abuses in here in Venezuela. And they profit from them?. I've been tortured, I still have burn marks in my body from torture at a venezuelan political prison for protesting against the government, I almost lost my right eye, have scars.... and I can't prove internationally per se that they did it. This, then, I find attrocious.
They're not a reputable new organization, but they have the Daddy Warbucks RNC behind them.
Even if they didn't find anything damming, I'm sure they could invent something.
photosMy Photostream
(since the chat was anonymous, it is hard to make this attribution; but they can always deny it later if it isn't true I guess)
You should've kept a chat log that you could leak later if they did change their stance.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
For Wikileaks to remain reputable, it must not resort to selling information. You'll end up creating more trouble and risk credibility issues.
There must be some other way to raise money. This is a great website, and they've stood some difficult tests - people should donate.
Selling information is just Wikileaks adapting to being part of a capilatlistic society where everything has a monetary value.
The argument that this is moral bankruptcy on their behalf is more truely a comment on how capitalism in society is functioning than just that website.
Wikileaks has something of value - access to a source of news with great potential to make headlines. Those headlines are worth money to newspapers. Since wikileaks doesn't have a print business and aren't an established media outlet, they're trying a different model to capitalise on their prize.
Note that wikileaks are only providing a period of exclusivity for the buyer of the source, so in addition to the buyer, they will inform the public too. For example, maybe tomorrow you would see something in the NYT or on CNN about Hugo Chevaz, from a story bought from Wikileaks... and in maybe 2 to 4 weeks later, it will appear on Wikileaks own website.
How is this detrimental to informing the public?
(p.s. please learn how to use a spelling checker or just plain learn how to spell.)
They more tarnished the name of 'Wiki' than help expand it.
That place was nothing more than a weekly conspiracy theorist wet dreams at that place.
I remember Slashdot was on a binge of posting articles from Wikileaks and each one would get shot down as weak evidence or stuff that was republished, all of a sudden the Wikileaks articles dried up. It seemed after the banking stuff was exposed in Sweden/EU things have gone quiet. Only thing that could possibly save that place from bankruptcy is a 'Watergate' type scandal exposed by them, but most of leaked stuff will be out on the major news networks soon enough.
When Israel takes out a terrorist, they often kill civilians, but the repulsive part is that the victims of the apartheid have a custom you don't understand? I'd prefer we arm the Palestinians equally with the Israelis, and then see how different the peace negotiations go in the next round.
The executive branch itself has long used propaganda, regardless of what "party" is in power. The problem you have is that you're unable to see how narrow your vision is. Only the most "radical leftists" argued that we have no business invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, and they received no serious coverage in the lead-up to the invasion. But when Russia responds to actual military attacks right on their own border, the same people leading us to Iraq say that "in the 21st century, you don't invade other nations."
The military censors what we're allowed to see from the Iraq War. Newspaper editors voluntarily censor what they put in their paper, so they don't piss off people in power they need access to in order to have news to sell. And sometimes they fake the news, and sometimes they report faked news, like the single letter that linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and yellowcake uranium in one page, which is now recognized as a complete forgery, conjured up by the government to ease our entry into war. And yet the propaganda that sent men and women to die in Iraq, and kill tens of thousands of civilians isn't worth mention in your little tirade.
We live in a state of unbelievably underperceived hypocrisy, and you still have your blinders on. If you don't believe it, just look at the photos on the front page of CNN, which you see as left, during the opening of the Iraq war and the opening of the war in South Ossetia.
Why would an obviously biased organization cover wars so differently? How is it that people only suffer when Russian tanks are on the move? Why aren't there pictures of dead civilians when bombs are dropped by billion dollar airplanes instead of strapped to terrorists?
You still believe in "them" versus "us." And whenever the government changes who "they" are, you follow right along.
Err... read your own link, dude.
Quoting from the English version of that Venezualan copyright law, that you linked to:
Which part of "by the mere fact of his creative act" is confusing you? By the very act of creating something, you already have copyright on it in Venezuella too. :P
I also quoted the next line because it also pretty much spells it out that even though he's a public figure and all, he still isn't losing that copyright.
Also, before that:
It's plain english, not even legalese. But if someoneone needs a translation: no, he doesn't have to register copyright anywhere, and there is explicitly no requirement of merit or purpose for it to apply. Still not clear? Well, let's read on:
It seems to me like if they're worthy of being disclosed or published by Wikileaks, they just met this requirement.
That is a valuable idea indeed, but it still doesn't quite justify a knee-jerk posting that even where it doesn't apply at all. The relevant paragraphs aren't different in its provision or spirit from US copyright law at all. Maybe post that remark where it actually applies? Just a thought ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It really is a shame. If Wikileaks begins to decline, I hope someone starts a similar site, but with the intent to keep it fully open.
I mean, I understand that they need money to pay their lawyers, but I fear that they are straying too far from their original goal.
A distributed leak service would be interesting. Maybe some kind of specialized P2P software?
Wikileaks has always been about blackmail. Plenty of companies have paid these guys money to keep shit off their site.
- Abandoning the wiki model is really losing the core good idea of this website. Remember, they are an anonymous bunch of people; I just don't feel I can trust them with choosing what should be or not be published, let alone say they don't want a single comma changed in their article because they like their own version better.
Ya, but no one was really participating in their wiki model (last page in the Wired article). Since they were looking for and failed to achieve participation by their standards, I can understand why they might want to explore a different means of distribution. Maybe they could try a slashdot approach married with their subscription model. They would have a few core contributors, stories could be accepted from the outside and the focus would be more in the discussion surrounding the article.
Just a precision for people who don't see the joke: a log you make from a chat doesn't prove anything since you could just edit it as a text file.
But since I spoke with two (anonymous) persons to be from wikileaks, and that they seemed to completely agree on that, I'm pretty confident that they would confirm it if needed.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
They will end up giving open source politics a bad name at the first scandal.
Yes, but who will be there to break the first scandal?
Hum, I agree they aren't open enough, but can you give examples of articles which "dried up"? There might not have been a highly mediatised leak since the banking one, but that doesn't mean they are going bankrupt any soon.
Only thing that could possibly save that place from bankruptcy is a 'Watergate' type scandal exposed by them, but most of leaked stuff will be out on the major news networks soon enough.
A lot of their leaks have made it to the major news networks, but they usually were credited as the one to uncover it, and the facts turned out to be true (in the banking incident, the bank itself authenticated the documents in court). I can't see how they loose from that.
If they called themselves cryptome2, and if the staff was publicly known, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I wouldn't have great expectations from it either, as would the public, instead of beiliving that it's "the wikipedia of jounalism". Which it is not.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
You're presenting crap from LittleGreenFootballs in a piece about bias? Okay. At least you're correct that those are genuine inaccuracies (except the one about rejecting the Op-Ed; they asked McCain to rewrite it because they wanted to hear his plans, not a rebuttal of Obama's).
For balance, how about Fox news listing a Republican caught in a scandal as a Democrat? Or "accidentally" airing that video they "rejected"?
More: http://www.newshounds.us/
Looks like they might need those funds for their own defence.
Yeah, doesn't Chavez have Byrne Convention grounds to go after them?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They will first sell Chavez' email then what would stop them to sell yours?
my l33t codez?
Just teasin'.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
of Chavez' connection to former officials in the Nigerian government! Wait'll that story breaks!!
I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
This is precisely why you have independent organizations capable of defending people who cannot defend themselves, when the issues of public interest become involved. I actually believe that the government should have to contribute to the ACLU in a mandatory fashion not alterable by the latest congress or budget for precisely this reason. It is in all our interests that we have institutions defending the public, not just the government or corporations.
[Ego]out
The "slashdot approach" is open: anyone can influence the article selection through firehose (even if editors keep special powers).
But even if you don't trust the editors, you know who they are: their reputation is at stake. In the case of wikileaks, they are anonymous, and even more, their sources are unknown. So the only reason for you to trust them is the knowledge that, if anyone thinks the information is wrong, he can come and explain why. Leaving comments is not enough for this to work: the article itself must be editable so that it reflects a consensus.
That's how wikipedia works (although it has shortcomings, and ultimatly relies on other sources to decide if a fact is true or not).
If they stop using a wiki model, their name should change. "Cryptome2", or "some anonymous guys leaks" would be more fitting. Right now the public sees the "wiki" prefix, and associate it with the wiki process. And we know that most journalists will easily miss the distinction too.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Freenet still exists for publishing anonymous leaks/information that the world should know about.
... a pooled fund to purchase these e-mails, if for nothing more than mere shites and giggles.
Besides, he's an elected official, and as stated above, has no real claim to a "private" life. Fair game and all that.
http://www.bannination.com
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you pesky kids ;)
Now seriously, though, Sweden is a member of WIPO too.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is not a copyright matter. I think Chavez will simply instruct venezuelan state security services to render the wikileaks staff or even make them sleep with the fishes.
I think the netizen generation no longer understands the risks involved with trading in military and political secrets, which wikileaks has been much involved lately. People do get headshot in those circles or a little polonium-210, it's not like Quake3 Arena where you can restart from scrath after a headshot.
Anarchists always have much bravado but finally they end up in an electric chair set up by the very state whose existance they deny.
But that's such a common error. I normally let most errors go but this Chavez' thing really got to me.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
What Wikileaks is doing now amounts to nothing less than black mail.
http://theopensociety.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/from-democracy-to-black-mail/
It's unbelievable that Mr. Chavez will trust on Russia. Russia? Russia attacked Georgia etc. Oh my God!!!