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.'"

Comments

This information is KILLING PEOPLE

[ClioCJS]

If I ran into Assange right now, I'd kill him with my own bare hands. He's a traitor.

This is what was told to me. There's some truth to this too. I tend to think of Wikileaks as a hero, but maybe they aren't. Maybe they are just a tool, like a gun or a hammer. A tool is neutral. It accomplishes a goal. It is neither good nor evil.

I'm wondering if I should consider this leak "good", or simply an "effective use of a tool".

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.

Wikileaks should have never released those docs.

[elucido]

It's so fkn simple Wikileaks should have never released those documents.

Documents with names, locations, and sources, should never be saved on any computer system. If they must be saved they should never be viewed by anybody who does not have Top Secret clearance. It puts lives at risk just for Assange to be able to view it. If Assange was able to view it, Bradley Manning is directly to blame and if people have died and importantly if Wikileaks dies, all blame should go to Bradley Manning. He is the moron who did what he did after swearing an oath. He is the moron who then went to Adrian Lamo of all people and openly compromised himself further.

Bradley Manning should of never have had Top Secret clearance. Julian Assange should have never have had those documents. Those documents should have never have been stored on any computer system including names and locations. That stuff should be code names no matter what.

Re:Info sec, trust, access control.

[PitaBred]

Assuming you want to live in a democracy and not a military state, the documents needed released. Hiding information from voters just makes our government a farce. He gave the government a chance to whitewash the names and such that would cause danger, and they chose to ignore him.

Seriously... you sound like you'd have been perfectly happy with the government telling you that the Jews were evil.

Re:war, or no war?

[QuantumG]

Wow, your post is full of ignorance (for instance, there is no war in Afghanistan, the US is aiding the government to suppress it's own people), perhaps if you read some of the documents that have been leaked you'd understand what is going on.

WikiLeaks and speficicaly Julian Assange...

[FlyingGuy]

Needs to be hauled to the woodshed for this.

I don't care if you want to call this a war, a police action or an occupation it is ongoing and peoples lives are at risk.

This is not a game people. This is the real fucking world. What WikiLeaks and Julian Assange did is pretty much indefensible especially now that a person is dead because of it.

Even if that person named is NOT dead I can pretty much guaranty that some people are going to die because of this. The Taliban or whatever group that does not want the US in their country is doing everything they can to resist and that includes killing people they consider to be spies or traitors. What Julian Assange thinks does not make a bit of difference to them, they are going to go over these documents with a fine tooth comb and kill in the most horrendous way anyone they think has betrayed them. Remember there is no such thing as due process over there. Some guy who has a bunch of guys working for him is simply going to say, "kill him" and that is how it is going to go down.

As many have mentioned information is classified for many reasons one of which is to protect those people who obtained the information. When I was in the military I listened to a lot of audio recordings and all of those started with a classification and a tag line that went something like, "Warning sensitive sources and methods involved". It was telling you that people who are risking their lives and those of their family obtained this information for us because they believed in US the United states and that we would protect them.

Now some fucking E3 ( third from the lowest pay grade in the US military ) decided that this should be public and because of that people are going to die as in dead as in ain't coming back, as in widows and orphans or maybe whole families. Perhaps putting that asshole along with Julian Assange up against a wall and giving them a lead overdose might just make the next group of people think before they divulge unfiltered military intelligence documents. It is one thing to expose government or big corporations since normally no one dies because of it, but when this shit happens people fucking die.

Sour Grapes.

[crhylove]

Information needs to be available to the public at large. If one of the informants gets killed or whatever, well then maybe we should retaliate, or protect them.

Otherwise, we're just letting people get killed for no fucking reason, which kind of sums up most of the wars we've run since WWII.

Wikileaks are fucking heroes. Anybody assailing the people who bring us REAL INFORMATION are just idiots, nazis, or some sick combo of both, like Rush Limbaugh.

Re:nice

[LWATCDR]

"Wikileaks publishes the raw material. They don't report on it or editorialize."
Really?
So you do not feel that calling the apache video "Collateral Murder" as editorializing?
Or the editing in of the text and video of one of the reporters children is not editorializing?
Really?
Hummm......
You use that word but I don't think you know what it means.
That is the big danger. It is very hard to see bias that you share.
Oh and the main stream press. Really also pretty bad on both sides. NPR is one of the few that I do not feel is too bad. Yes they have a bias but for the most part it is some what controlled and what I would say is at the normal human level that is probably unavoidable.
To think that Wikileaks doesn't editorialize is just outside of my understanding.
Yea "Collateral Murder" is unbiased and none inflammatory.

And if they offered to let the Pentagon redact the document that would be easy. They would redact it all.
Yea I doubt that would happen.