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?
This stunt will come back to haunt them.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Because you don't want incentives for sources to create stories (or forgeries).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
They may not want incentives for sources to create stories, but why then are reporters paid? They create stories, "spin" them I believe is the term they use, all the time and we love 'em for it.
Is this money going to pay for wikileaks's legal bills, or for the site owners' new porshe? Think about it. Either wikileaks sinks from being unable to defend themselves in court, or find themselves a way to pay for their lawyers and other fees.
That's like saying politicians don't lie.
Any story can be written so it comes out meaning something completely different to what really happens even if what you write isn't a lie per se.
Let me see:
Hitler is dead. Hitler's Estate can not claim copyright ownership. Hitler's rights have expired. Hitler's diaries are much more difficult to tamper with than copied email records. Conversely, Hitler's diaries are probably much easier to authenticate than electronic email records. And contrary to what the CIA wants us to believe -- Hugo Chavez is not Hitler.
And besides, wikileaks doesn't claim to have Hugo Chavez's email records, they claim to have the email records of an unspecified "top aide" of Hugo Chavez. And here in the United States, it's not the top aides that leak the information (unless they sell the information themselves for lucrative book deals, or unless it's a careful manufactured fake leak), it's our own President himself who doesn't know the difference between whitehouse.org and whitehouse.gov when emailing his staff.
Successful blackmail in that case, I guess.
'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.
The most likely buyers will be the victims of the leaks. Yay for disguised blackmail!
"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.
Why not? Those diaries were an incredible hit, pushed the sales of the "Stern" by thousands and didn't really have any negative impact for them when the hoax became public. A lot of people were actually angry that they stopped the series, despite it being fake.
People don't care whether a story is real or not. Whether a story is interesting and entertaining matters.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
And why a site like this have to be run in the USA? They could even drop these documents in a file sharing network.
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*.
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"
You're high. Dan Rather? Jason Blair? Big Media is essentially a spin factory these days. We have troops coming back from Iraq and hardly recognizing what they're seeing on the news passing for "war coverage." Yet, we're formulating our opinions on the war based on that coverage. Hmmm...
As for Chavez, I could care less what becomes of it. He's a piece of shit.
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.
stop running decades-old innuendo about John McCain and start running the current stories about John Edwards real sexual affairs and resulting love child
Well, the love child allegations is still just a good guess rather than an actual fact, as the mother's refusal to even ask for a parental test is well, suspicious. However, according to both parties, the 'timing' isn't right, so it's not a confirmed fact. What is a fact, is that McCain is the Republican Presidential Candidate for 2008 (well, technically presumptive), and John Edwards is a private citizen, who made a failed attempt at the White House, twice, and now seems to be making an attempt at staying out of the media. Other than one (that I know of) interview directly addressing the scandal, he has stayed away from the spotlight. Assuming that he hasn't committed any illegal acts, someone who wants peace and keeps to themselves, should have it. However the payments that were made to the woman in question, well, that might be the real scandal, leave the kid out of it. Frankly, I've never liked Edwards much as a candidate anyways, too 'plastic' for me; if you were going to do a cartoon of a 'generic president' he'd make a good model. Personally, I think that it was his wife who was the real political genius.
John McCain on the other hand is running for President, and isn't afraid to make an assertion, in person or by proxy against his opponent, unfortunately continuing the same slanderous politics which he had previous decried. Seeing him get pounded in the press is just an unfortunate part of the game he's playing.
Yet, we're formulating our opinions on the war based on that coverage. Hmmm...
As for Chavez, I could care less what becomes of it. He's a piece of shit.
And you're formulating your opinion on Chavez based on what ? ;-)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.
Yes, but it's just as naive to ascribe journalistic behaviour to tardmemes like "the liberal media" the "zionist conspiracy" or (/. favorite) "mainstream media bias".
Journalists do what they do for one of two reasons: self-glorification (such as Dan Rather) or to sell papers. The big boys who own the papers don't give a damn how you vote or how you perceive events unless it affects their bottom line; they can buy and sell congressmen of either party like bars of soap. If it doesn't increase or at least maintain circulation, they don't print it. This manifests differently in channels that survive on pure advertisement revenue as compared to media that run on subscription income, but it's the same basic impulse.
With the exception of media that are entirely supported by a single outside source (such as the Reverend Moon, Lord of Heaven and America) all media must generate income to survive. There are a limited number of eyeballs to saturate and the media that cannot compete (again excepting a few anomalies like Moon and Xenu) fail in accordance with Darwin's model.
What you buy determines what they sell. Consumers create the news! Right now, the consumers are buying Obama, and McCain is staying on the shelf. It's not a conspiracy - or if it is, you're a member of it.
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.
Wait, are you talking about Dan Rather or Right-wing blogs?
Yeesh... someone likes their right-wing blogs.
I understand your point and I agree that while some event might be newsworthy and even interesting, with a little tweak here or a little adjustment there, it could be stupendous and earth-shaking news. The temptation is too great for some journalists to bear.
But I hardly think one side of the political spectrum has a corner on the market.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
did he at least fill up the tank? I mean, he's got all that cheap gas...
FreeBSD for the impatient.
You know, yours started out as a seemingly somewhat insightful comment. Then you come in with lines like, "The Associated (with terrorists) Press" and you unmask yourself as totally off your rocker. It also doesn't help that almost all of your links point to what is clearly essentially a political propaganda site.
However, I don't dispute that the mainstream press makes stuff up. I don't know how you missed mentioning the Jayson Blair incident, for example. Usually people have a tendency to notice the instances that go against their ideological preconceptions and interpret this as a [insert opposing group/ideology] media bias. I think it's good to remember Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity...or in this case laziness and greed. The simplest explanation for the observed phenomenon is simply that journalists try to churn out as much work as possible as quickly as possible and sometimes some of them get sloppy. Unfortunately, most of the people who would like to position themselves as the alternative to mainstream media are even worse, in terms of both accuracy and bias.
I wish there were more of a backlash against inaccurate reporting, but unfortunately most people are far too constrained by ideological blinders to do anything but turn it into some partisan fight over supposed media bias. Judging by your list of sources and the absence of any of the many many examples of misconduct by Fox News, it seems you probably fall into this category as well.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy