Slashdot Mirror
Human Rights Groups Join Criticism of WikiLeaks
e065c8515d206cb0e190 writes "Several human rights organizations contacted WikiLeaks and pressed them to do a better job at hiding information that endangers civilians within their leaked documents. From the article: 'The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication. ... An [Amnesty International] official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.'"
An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.
Kind of comes off as a narcissistic jerk here.
And a point that isn't made enough: people complain that wikileaks didn't do a good enough job of redacting the info themselves yet wikileaks requested help redacting sensitive info from the pentagon(they would after all have all the knowledge required to pick out what could potentially reveal their sources in a roundabout manner after all) but they got no reply other than attempts to shut them up entirely.
In an ideal world wikileaks would not be necessary.
There was a simple solution to this... Let the US government go through the documents redacting sensitive names and locations.
Unfortunately they refused putting those afghans in danger.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I believe that it's, actually, a quote often taken out of context. My understanding is that the quote goes something like "Information wants to be free but, at the same time, information wants to be private". I don't think the original writer intended it to be a total endorsement of all information being free.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
The possibility of these sources being murdered? How about the actual fact of at least one Afghan tribal elder -- Khalifa Abdullah -- who was murdered because one E3 did not appreciate the actual risk to real life human beings from releasing these documents.
Interesting. Searching google with the terms: "site:wikileaks.org abdullah" returns about a page of results. I see some references to a gentleman in Canada, some about one in Somalia, some references to King Abdullah (didn't bother to see whether it was Saudi Arabia or Jordan, since it's clearly not relevant,) the Foreign Minister of Turkey... ...not a single result was from the Afghan files.
The Taliban have been ramping up assassinations in Kandahar for months. Correlation is not causation. If you want to pin a dead civilian on Wikileaks, you might want to start with one that's actually mentioned.
Fix, source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
Makes for easier sorting too without having to parse the string.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Searching google with the terms: "site:wikileaks.org abdullah" returns about a page of results. [...] ...not a single result was from the Afghan files.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Afghan files are all distributed in compressed 7-Zip archives, which might account for Google not indexing them.
"This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
If I ran into Assange right now, I'd kill him with my own bare hands. He's a traitor.
Ehmm, no, he's not, and no, you wouldn't. You're just an internet tough guy.
This is what was told to me. There's some truth to this too.
Ahhh, so you didn't even bother to think it through for yourself, you just blindly accepted the opinion of someone else who doesn't know the definition of traitor? And you're willing to state you'd commit murder based on that?
I don't think it's evil as a whole, but if people are dying due to the individual parts, then perhaps the issue is not so simple as "good || bad".
I don't know.
Now *that* is a good starting point. You don't know all the facts. Neither do I. How about we do some hard thinking *before* contemplating murder?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/robots.txt has Disallow: /
It took six months to find Saddam Hussein, hiding in a hole in the ground where he did not want to be found.