Slashdot Mirror
Today's WikiLeaks News
In today's episode of As WikiLeaks Turns we learn that WikiLeaks's main web site is back up less than 10 days after EveryDNS terminated the domain name over stability concerns. A 16-year-old Dutch boy suspected of being involved in the pro-WikiLeaks attacks on MasterCard and Visa has been arrested. But Dutch teenagers aren't the only Assange fans in the news. Many top journalists in Australia have sent a letter(PDF) to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support of WikiLeaks. The Sydney Police have written their own letter however to organizers of a pro-WikiLeaks rally saying that the police oppose a planned demonstration. Finally, special correspondent for The Times, Alexi Mostrous and freelance reporter Heather Brooke were given permission by the judge in the Julian Assange trial to post Twitter updates about the proceedings.
This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.
but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.
One "hacker" down, 4,999,999 to go!
WikiLeakss's
Last time I checked it was WikiLeaks with one s, not WikiLeakss.
I can't think of a more useless medium to give updates about a trial.
OMG! Ass. is up for Qs. Its gonna be bad. He's vervus. SHORT.URL?XVHEHWK
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Can we get a category for wikileaks news? Because I honestly do not care. And that's the point of Slashdot categories: seeing only what I want to see.
Over the last six months, every time something is posted on Wikileaks, there's a Slashdot article. Now they're coming multiple times a day.
Advice: on VPS providers
Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.
WikiLeaks used to have a chat running online at https://chat.wikileaks.org/ . With that chat apparantly missing, does anyone know if WikiLeaks have an official IRC chat running at all?
At a higher level, this just indicates the extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields. Just why would Sweden (of all places) dance to Hillary's tune? Their politics runs more the opposite. Some feminists might like the broadening and exposure of sexual misconduct laws, but the more thoughtful might consider this stretch happens on the backs of women who are indisputably abused. Dubious claims and outright false allegations justify unfortunately piercing scrutiny of victims and further humiliation.
Britian is similar. First we had the unbelieveable spectacle of a Labour government supporting the American invasion of Iraq, and maintaining support after WMD unfound and Tony Blair putting down three quite representative backbencher revolts. They will grind it all through very carefully, trying to stay reasonable lest they suffer the voter backlash that Sweden is almost certain to see.
Astonishing how the US gets people to jump in front of a bus. Proof more Wikileaks are needed.
And until the people know the truth, we can not change a thing.
is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.
What is no justification for the bad Wikileaks does?
This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.
but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.
Let me help you:
The assistant commissioner added that without a court notice authorising the rally, protesters and organisers would not have the support of the NSW Police Service.
I don't know about Australia but in America you need a permit after your party gets to be a certain size on public property. The assistant commissioner stated:
"Under Section 26 of the Summary Offences Act, I am advising you that I oppose the holding of your public assembly,"
Doesn't that just sound like some fishy shit? Not supported by the NSW Police Service because you don't have a permit? Or massive government conspiracy?
...
It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses. The police don't oppose it, the assistant commissioner said that they oppose it because they didn't follow the law to get authorization to assembly. All this is going down immediately (this evening). The complaint from the commissioner is that the paperwork wasn't submitted in a timely manner.
When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped
My work here is dung.
So go build an army and start a fascist revolution. If enough people support you, we'll get the sort of world you want.
"Police oppose a planned demonstration?" - by wierd_w (1375923) on Wednesday December 15, @01:59PM (#34564176)
Per my subject-line above, IF you haven't realized it that yet in your lifetime? The police simply do, what they are TOLD TO DO, by their political puppet masters!
(Who, in turn, do what THEY ARE TOLD TO DO, by their "KORPORATE AMERIKA" overlords, who in turn, respond to & do what THEY ARE TOLD, by the banks (WMF - the biggest crooks on the planet)).
It's not the "regular joe" cop, or even the police chief though & I want to STRESS THAT... they are people, ordinary working stiffs, & they too KNOW what's going on as well!
However: They too, are in FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES & KIDS etc., due to things like THIS where "the powers that be" even THREATEN OTHERS for fear of your job even http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/0038211/Air-Force-Blocks-NY-Times-WaPo-Other-Media occuring now for gov't. employees.
Everyone KNOWS what's going on, & the "scum at the top"? They pretty much are like "Yes, 'F-U' slaves - we run the show, NOT YOU, so 'know your role'" etc.!
Still - they don't want people like Assange around, so they try to "frame him up" on some b.s. "rape" charge (you can't "rape the willing" & the women Assange banged wanted it - they made some NEW LAW though that says if a condom breaks during sex, it's rape... Oh, please: Give us a f'ing break already! We're NOT that stupid!)
I will say 1 thing here though - the "powers that be"? They are AFRAID this time... look at them pressuring AMAZON, EveryDNS, PayPal (they admitted it), & others who either hosted wikileaks or took donations... why are the frightened this round?? Because they are NOT IN CONTROL OF THE INTERNET, they hate it, in fact - and they made the mistake of trying to "kill an idea"... impossible to do.
Being better than TV doesn't make it any good. It sucks less, but the drama still sucks. Remember when Slashdot used to discuss programming? No? That must have been a dream.
Yeah, like voting for Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, Eric Holder and Joe Liberman. That ought to secure freedom for the foreseeable future. Fuck, yeah!
Short attention span is going to ensure that information flow is absolutely controlled by the powers that be, it seems.
Check your premises.
Can we have Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau play parts? pleaaaase!
Experiments and other stuff
is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.
Well, you can't have the good without the bad...
There are better ways to do it.
Like what? Wear buttons with sloagans about love, put bumper stickers on your car?
Experiments and other stuff
What the hell is the point of a letter from the police stating they oppose the demonstration? Does Australia protect the right of people to peacefully assemble, or does it not? A letter from the police on this subject is ominous for Australia's political and economic security.
I just told you the truth.
The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say. But the person who believes he is the least fascist is very likely to think so.
Like the man said, every anarchist is a baffled dictator.
Regards the "Kill an Idea" statement. I have what I consider parallel circumstance to draw. Some 60 or so years ago a shepherd in the Qumram area of Palistine unearthed some scrolls. We now know these as the Dead Sea Scrolls. After being reported as "Find of the Century" a small group of scholars started to work on them. and that was it. Few reports, no translations of the more interesting ones. Nothing. Fairly recently a second group of scholars obtained copies and "leaked" the actual scrolls to the Internet. The "Scrollary" scholars were very upset, threatened law suits copyright infringement and everything. But the data was out there now. It could be viewed by MANY people some official some not. But available. One could draw a parallel circumstance with FOIA2009.zip and the global warming argument. When Data is free, many minds can look, determine, and decide. When few know, few control. Internet is Freedom and information DEMANDS to be free. Wikileaks performed a very needful service before all this and, in spite of diplomatic egg on face STILL performs a needful service. As I said: Information DEMANDS to be free.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Like what?
...and not one reference to Dutch boys putting their fingers in dikes. Those Swedish prosecutors must be scary...
Blank until
Don't forget! There was also an XKCD comic published about this. Or is that just common knowledge?
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
You can't handle the truth!
wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.
had this been any newspaper, none of these news would make the headline. had they made, rest would be suppressed.
we are seeing internet show its power, through people, even if the establisment tries to suppress it.
see :
http://46.59.1.2/mirrors.html
2100+ mirrors. that many people put up private server space to help wikileaks. that is, not even counting the people who are spreading messages, links, articles.
it interests all of us. its internet in its purest form, as how it should be. if it doesnt interest you, or you are unable to understand, maybe you should try other sites like digg, or facebook.
Read radical news here
there are better ways to do it. that is the reason why it has never been done and successful before.
wake up. if it was possible to do it in any other way, it would have been done.
Read radical news here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html
I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
tl;dr
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Am I the only one who has considered the possibility that Assange purposely tried to impregnate his 2 accusers in order to strengthen his attempt to obtain Swedish citizenship? This could explain why the women only filed charges after they met and exchanged stories. "What? The condom also broke when he was with you? He was trying to impregnate us against our wills for political purposes!"
wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.
No, WikiLeaks is the manifestation of one man's overinflated ego and the readiness of a bunch of directionless nerds to rally around a messiah, ANY messiah that has too much charisma and an agenda.
WikiLeaks WAS at one point what you described, and it would be nice if they went back to something like that. What it BECAME is one man riding an ego-fueled high and telling people what everyone else's governments should be doing.
claes.borgstrom@advbyra.se
Thomas.bodstrom@advbyra.se
(Should you chose to support the Swedish prosecutors, also aligned against Assange, their mail server is:
http://156.49.126.250/
The graphic for the day, from this site:
http://eriatarka.tumblr.com/
would be:
http://zero1infinity.tumblr.com/post/2300713684/justice
It worries me that people feel the government is entitled to determine when, where, and how protests are held. It seems to me that controlling those aspects of a demonstration is as damaging as preventing it outright.
Ok, technically, it's a newspaper, but over here in the UK if you said to somebody "I know Fact X is true because I read it in The Sun" they'd burst out laughing. It's regarded as a bit of a joke here, light entertainment. Referring to it as a major newspaper and your main information source rather undermines your argument.
It's what a lot of people read to get entertainment gossip, horse racing tips, football results, and to see a woman showing her boobs on Page 3. Very few people would use it as their sole information source. It does run news stories but its more famous for its gossip. This is the newspaper than brought you the headline "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" as its main news one day. I've been told the equivalent in the USA is The National Enquirer, apologies, I don't know this newspaper too well.
Wikileaks has been set up by the CIA to promote war with Iran and North Korea, and to expose corruption and ongoing problems in Afghanistan.
Assange works for British intelligence. The rape charges are an excuse to go into hiding and not take questions publicly.
Wikileaks is a GOOD THING. It is not a conspiracy, but a plain old intelligence program which is achieving its goals better than anyone could have hoped.
Reporter's name is Heather Brooke... teehee
Oh... not THAT Heather Brooke.
Never mind.
Whatever you do, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT google her at work. I happen to have been told about (I don't know about it personally, a friend of a friend) told me that there is a Heather Brooke online with her name spelled exactly the same and this other one (it could be the same one, if it is awesome) and she is not really into reporting. Her mic she puts in her mouth is skin tone and fleshy. Now I wonder how many people are going to google her to see if I am lying, and how many people are going to google her for shits and giggles. But yeah, I figured I would warn you to not search the names on this article at work
The world is how you make it
I heard that for every ribbon magnet I slap on there, they kill 10 more insurgents! And since it's not a sticker, it won't ruin my paint. And I won't have to suffer the atrocity of a devaluation of my car. And I can simply take it off when it's convenient.
Wikileaks is an internet "fence", coming into possession of and distributing stolen materials. Not that I have issue with that, any more than grabbing material via a Torrent, but really, let's keep this in perspective - this is not some huge service to man kind worthy of the Peace prize or even a Scouting merit badge. Especially this whole diplomatic cables thing - why is there any expectation to know ambassadorial opinion, what they refer to so and so as, and other speculative writings? Does the fact that someone has a government job mean that their communications deserve less expectation of privacy than your own work or personal correspondence? If you are willing to forgo any expectation of privacy, then you can demand that of government officials or any other person.
Wikileaks is not a manifestation of the power of the internet any more than the original Napster was, or The Pirate Bay - Wikileaks and the other sites merely show that anything than can/does exist in a digital representation can be widely distributed to anyone with basic internet connectivity.
I assume you're trying to say that Wikileaks should stop looking at the US and get back to leaking about the rest of the world?
What exactly is it that makes people say Assange is an egomaniac as opposed to say, Palin, Lieberman, or any of the self congratulating US "news" crowd who have forgotten the meaning of the word journalism and apparently think it has something to do with quoting "government sources".
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
All Wikileaks has done has given the US an excuse to stick a big red button on the internet and shut bits of it down when it chooses. Expect a bipartisan ruling from governments all around the world to enforce direct control over IPS and Domains in the future.
Wikileaks has just helped give reason to censor the internet with a very simple concept behind managing the censorship.
Enjoy it while it lasts. We're marching towards Internet 2 where Net Neutrality will be a thing of the past. It's happening in the EU and it's started in the US. 15 years ago the internet caught a lot of people by surprise and they weren't sure what to make of it. I think they have a better idea now and are slowly working towards swinging the pendelum from the wild wild west of information back to something closer to how the "on-line" experience was in the late 80's and early 90's with Compuserve/AOL/Prodigy, etc..
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America. Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers? Is WikiLeaks covering that? Is WikiLeaks going to at any point in the near future shed some light on the Mexican government's involvement with the drug cartels?
WikiLeaks isn't this bastion of idealistic free speech that you're making it out to be. Perhaps, in days gone past, it used to be. All it is now is little more than just another anti-American soapbox for Assange to rally his cadre of basement dwelling, teenage criminals around.
Is it just me, or is it all fine and dandy for so many non-Americans (be it Belgian teenagers, Australian journalists, or whomever) to support WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't launched a smear campaign against their own nations? I understand and support the stated purpose of bringing to light corruption, fraud, malfeasance, etc but so much of their recent material has nothing to do with any of that... and everything about furthering an Anti-American agenda. As much as we do things that anger you (rightly so, often enough) we also do many otherwise laudatory things that are often unremarked on or taken for granted. My country's not perfect, but neither is anyone else's.
How about if I say Assange is an egomaniac and Palin, Liberman, and every other politician at the federal level are all egomaniacs? Is that better?
Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.
Does the fact that someone has a government job mean that their communications deserve less expectation of privacy than your own work or personal correspondence? If you are willing to forgo any expectation of privacy, then you can demand that of government officials or any other person.
well, teh cables are nothing like personal correspondence, and any work correspondence is controlled and owned by the company, its NOT private, your boss has the right to look through your work email and big brother you, because he pays you to do a job. why should the government expect otherwise? we pay them to do a job, why should we defend their right to be secretive about their motives when they should be answering to us?
You can call all of them egomaniacs if you want: That's free speech though somewhat lacking in information.
Even if I'd agree with that it changes nothing about the significance of what Wikileaks has done with the war logs or the embassy cables.
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.
I challenge your assertion that "Assange's little feud" is not "productive". It seems to have produced quite a lot, from where I sit, particularly compared to the efforts of just about everyone else currently in this arena of exposing secrets.
Such an action may well open up the challenge that 'internet = press', and such a button could well become an interesting topic indeed.
>The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say.
Not possible. People who don't know what secrets to keep go extinct.
Don't forget to mention Assange has been nominated for Nobel Prize.
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/3EB18677E7D6A80BC22577FA0021EA18?OpenDocument
It is not a very hard thing to do and hundreds are probably nominated every year, but it nonetheless is the first mandatory step.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.
I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America. Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers?
It's WikiLEAKS. If it hasn't been leaked to Wikileaks, how can Wikileaks publish it? Wikileaks is not an espionage organization and it's not about on-the-move journalism. If you have some information on these topics, which you seem to be so concerned about, why don't you put your own ass on the line and send it to Wikileaks?
and im a short green alien ...
Read radical news here
All Wikileaks has done has given the US an excuse to stick a big red button on the internet and shut bits of it down when it chooses.
so it wasnt gonna do that if wikileaks wasnt around eh ?
that should be why bush & co started the preparations for acta back in 2002, and started going around for it in 2004. that is probably why they attacked net neutrality in 2006. and the reason for coica, schmoica is also that.
geet real.
Read radical news here
I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America.
currently, as you are seeing, america is the main problem on the free speech rights and freedom of thought, in the part of the world that is supposedly free.
once we, the people, win on that front, we can get to china, russia.
dont be too irky because your country, government is now on the fireline. as you can see, they stopped being YOUR country, government, loooong ago.
Read radical news here
Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.
They're a direct rebuttal to the government's claims that water is dry, the sky is orange, and fire is tepid.
What exactly is it that makes people say Assange is an egomaniac as opposed to say, Palin, Lieberman, or any of the self congratulating US "news" crowd
Jealousy. Plain, obvious, jealousy. That's why they say they agree with what he's doing, but not how he's doing it.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Grow a backbone and come join the other mammals when you're ready.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
The links below have been reported to contain Malware, so don't click without reading first.
I'm confused. wikileaks.org redirects to mirror.wikileaks.info. That page looks like WikiLeaks did a year ago (a simple MediaWiki site), but it has up-to-date content. Meanwhile, the official domain we have had for the past fortnight, wikileaks.ch is still running and serving the "new look" which seems to just have the cablegate stuff.
mirror.wikileaks.info links to wikileaks.ch if you click on cablegate. They also claim this is a false spam report; the spam report claims that "Wikileaks.info is NOT connected with Julian Assange or the Wikileaks organization" and that "We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what's at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group." (Fair enough; it does claim to be a mirror.)
So is wikileaks.info a malware site or a legitimate WikiLeaks mirror? I'm all for WikiLeaks mirrors, but it seems like the main wikileaks.org domain should link to the main website, not a very different mirror. And if wikileaks.info is a malware site, where do you go to get all the other WikiLeaks content from the old site (it doesn't seem to be available anymore from wikileaks.ch)?
I'm thinking more and more that most of these leaks have less to with "national security" and more to with payback from McCrystal over his firing; he paid Manning to take the rap. For Manning's trouble, $50,000 is a nice number; that's what it would be worth to me.
Can my karma get any worse than bad? Let's find out!
It's not up to Wikileaks to decide what is useful, this is up to the public. You can't say the public has to make it's own decisions and at the same time make decisions for the public.
Also, we have Wikileaks because the people tried to trust their government to decide what the public deserves to know, and this has failed - the government kept secrets that the public wanted and needed to know. Wikileaks MUST be transparent and leak everything they get.
What's more:
- Sources need to know what they give to Wikileaks will be leaked. It's not worth the risk otherwise and people will stop leaking documents to Wikileaks.
- Think about it: if Wikileaks had not published the cables, and the public heard they had the cables but did not publish them, then we would now be asking "Why not? Did the government threaten Wikileaks? Did Wikileaks get paid? Is corruption running inside Wikileaks and we can' t trust what they tell us?
Finally, some stuff in the cables was valuable. Such as Mrs. Clinton asking diplomats to spy on U.N. officials. I wonder why some people keep forgetting about that one...
Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers?
Are any of those things secret? I hear reports about them all the time. But if you have any leaked government or corporate documents on the subject, send them to wikileaks, and I'm sure they'll be publicized.
Or are you claiming that wikileaks should be reporting on things that are already available elsewhere?
Support SETI@home
I didn't say i liked it, i just said whats going to happen.
Wikileaks has censored the internet for the rest of us.
I probably didn't say this in the best of ways.. a failing.. but basically.. I hate the attitude of do what you are told to do and be a good soldier with no questions in your mind about your actions in regards to your morals. I realize that sometimes this has to be the way the world is but I still hate the rationalization that people make..
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Good. The more extreme the reaction, the more they clamp down and discard reason, the larger than anger. The idea here isn't to go back in time to when things were "better." That's impossible. At this point we can only move forward. It's time to accelerate the descent into totalitarianism. We have to hit the wall before we can break through it. I and many others are sick of watching this unstoppable process unfold in slow motion. It needs to be gotten over with already: the war needs to begin so that it can be ended. Dark times are coming. Bring your flashlight.
So you're saying we should self-censor in order to not give the government an excuse to implement official censorship? If we don't even use our rights to free speech, why should we care in the first place?
Our governments already have many, many bogus reasons to censor the Internet..
Bogus reasons bring clutter, conjecture and argument.
Serious reasons get everyone on side.
The worst thing that could happen to the powers that be is that the proles rediscover sneaker-net.
came here for "Heather Brooke" , leaving disappointed :(
I agree. We should voluntarily give them a big red button (by NOT doing what they don't want us to do).
So, your worry about giving them an "excuse to stick a big red button on the internet" (like they haven't already tried, and don't have enough reasons already), is that we voluntarily do it for them, by stopping everything they don't like, regardless of whether its just to do so?
You Sir, are a fucking genius.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
WTF? Is it just me or is half the ppl on /. a bunch of cynical twits.
Did I say give it too them? did i say this was a great thing? No and No and no! they dont have enough reasons because if they did there would be a red button. Consider that net censorship was primarily about Kiddy Porn and Piricy things that really dont affect the Govt directly. I dont think i saw Steve Conroy at any point of his limelight days want to push his net filter because of restricting classfied information, did you?
I'm guessing you have half a brain so I'm assuming you'd know making Apnic, Arin, etc put a Govt deemed process to pull the plug on certian IP's isnt an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Having Govt secrets broadcasted over the net is a very good reason to want to pass a bill to ensure a control factor such as this. Thinking otherwise is "Fucking Genius". Political Analysts are out there already speculating that its going to be a major point of discussion and if you read the news you can see most countries (with the only exception being Israel) is seeing the situation in a negative light and wouldn't want the same happening to them.
Moron! Twit.. fag ... see i can call you names too, try to be a little less offensive. That goes for rest of the fucktards wanting to just ark up. Try posting something that constructive I'm totally respectful to other peoples opinions and im happy to debate them with you without the childish banter!
WTF? Is it just me or is[sic] half the ppl on /. a bunch of cynical twits.
Yes, it's just you and your argument I'm afraid.
There are several things wrong here - you are suggesting that we should care what our governments think and be afraid of them, you are suggesting that self-censorship is better than trying to evade censorship, you are suggesting that whistleblowing is seen by most populations as a crime, and you are suggesting that western governments can easily pull the plug on websites with no repercussions.
If governments round the world are scared of the internet, that's a good thing. If this forces governments to expose their true face by pulling the plug on wikileaks, that's also a good thing, as we can see clearly where they stand. If nothing else it gives the lie to posturing over other countries' human rights records by the US, which is often used as an excuse for invasions, and yet ignored when convenient.
If this excuse didn't exist they'd fabricate another one to try to control the internet (like child porn, as they already have), so the important thing is to fight for what you believe in, not hide behind cowardly excuses about what a government reaction might be.
> It's happening in the EU and it's started in the US
Umm... How is it happening in the EU ? The US is the one with Comcast trying to bill both content providers and content consumers and doing prioritisation; not to mention the government being able to pressure major internet and realworld companies like Paypal, EveryDNS, Amazon and Visa into kicking Wikileaks.
As for Europe, well... The swedes charged,discharged and recharged Assange - which is probably not originally a US plot, but the recharge might have been political; the UK arrested him - but that's just following Interpol standards; and the Swiss - surprisingly - kicked his bank account, on charges of providing false information, which really is a good enough reason, just a bit very coincidental timing. None of that is related to net neutrality in and of itself, however; and note that the wikileaks domain is currently in Switzerland.
I dunno; the US seems the worse of where net neutrality is concerned, at least at this moment.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
And I think that'll just force us to create a technological solution to their internet kill switch. It's something we won't do now because it's too much of a pain in the ass, but if we're forced to, I think it'll happen pretty soon.
Yes, it's just you and your argument I'm afraid.
No you are so what am I? Ner Ner Ner lets keep at it with the twittery. Moving on from yet another displayed piece of fuckheadedness.
I'm not worried about the Government and I'm not afraid of them. I'm just stating a fact. Its people like yourself not seeing whats right in front of you.
Governments controls our spending. Govt controls what type of cars hit the streets. Govt controls whats said on TV. Govt creates the infrastructure we use, transport, communications and that includes the internet.
The internet has nothing different about it if you compare it to any other form of broadcast service except for the fact at its present stage of development it has a pack of wannabe freedom lovers thinking they are untouchable.
Another broadcast service was the same back pre internet and it was called CB Radio. Where are they now? On the fucking internet because the govt kicked them off the airwaves.
Deny it all you want. You want the Govt to not control every little detail of your life go move to the Amazon Rainforest and set up camp. In the meantime the world has been inherited by the meek and the evidence is that politics shapes our lives, like it or not.
Freelance reporter Heather Brooke is a modern-day Deep Throat.
When the US government cancels the school trip because little Julian was unruly in class don't beat him up in the playground. That's what teacher wants you to do.
Ironically, had the fucking moron Torrented it from the start, there would be no issue.
Except he purposefully didn't, knowing that hosting it on US Amazon servers would of course eventually take them off-line.
It stopped interesting me when it became clear it wasn't about getting the word out, it was about keeping douche bag in the spot light.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The following is from Cryptome, link here: http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-amok.htm
Wikileaks Cables Amok
A sends:
In the last days I have been following the release of a bunch of US diplomatic cables from W-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s. All of them were initially released uncensored but as you might know some of them have been removed, others have been partially redacted (a.k.a. censored) without any kind of prior notice.
The people from WL said that they will redact some of the names in order to remove personal identifiable information but in fact they have removed full paragraphs that although they could be a little bit embarrassing for US diplomacy they do not put anybody at risk.
For example:
- There were 13 cables deleted from WL cablegate site (e.g.: #09LONDON1385).
- At least 11 cables were slightly redacted (e.g.: #07PARIS322).
- 138 cables published by Lebanese Al-Akhbar paper but not yet put into WL.
- 33 cables disclosed by the British paper The Guardian but not yet in WL.
I have not seen or read any news regarding this strange change of policy in any media so this is the reason I think you might be interested to know about it and maybe publish it in your site for public scrutiny.
You can check the differences with the uncensored cables at:
* http://leakager742hufco.onion/ (with tor as its a hidden service)
* http://www.mein-parteibuch.org.nyud.net/cablegate/
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Switzerland is not part of the EU, by the way.
True that, people should challenge the Govt at every turn and make the strongest possible point.
Believe me when i say this i'm no advocate I'm just pointing out my own insights there. Which is we are headed for a regulated internet regardless.
The good thing about Govt is usually they are very slow to act and it could take years even decades to produce. What Assange has done is sped it up to be simply a few years for some nations simply a few months.
Assange will go down in the history books as the man who showed the world why censorship was needed and remember the famous quote on who writes those history books? Not particularly a picture painted of accuracy just what the Victors proclaim.
Within 10 years we are going to see a regulated internet. People are going to need licences to produce websites. Social community sites like Facebook will have to pay for the pleasure of producing the type of content they hold and Businesses will need to pay a yearly fee to whichever Govt they are a part of. The unlicensed sites will be banned from the general public through their filtration mechanisms.
Think of the amounts of extra money govts can tap in to, another form of tax created by the internet? with the economic issues to date govts would be stupid to pass up such an opportunity. Like i mentioned before in one of my above posts, I would not be at all surprised if the US Govt engineered this whole Wikileaks thing on their own.
Things like the Australian filter and now the French censorship laws are a wireframe for this, even though the filters may be noneffective today, tomorrow the process grows. This is how Govt works, they take an idea they build on it and they suck the peoples money horrendously until they get it.
And with the introduction of IPv6 what that be the catalyst of these changes.
sure I wish I had mod points to mod up,at least the part about one mans overinflated ego. I'm openly not a fan of wikileaks. I believe in transparency - but up to a point. The dump of state department cables presumes that there is something bad up with the US State department ... and that 'the world has a right to know, so lets dump all the cables out there in public, and let the world decide what ugliness the US was up to.' So, ok, I'll buy that, power corrupting absolutely and all that.
Here's my problem. Why is wikileaks stopping with just the US state department or governments? If the presumption is that any organization in power, abuses its power, why just pick on the US State department? Let's dump the emails of all of our police forces. While we're at it, dump the names of the informants - I'm sure that would be good. Let's dump the internal emails of my company's CEO - I'm sure he's up to no good too, and let's dump all my competitors CEO's mail too, as I bet they're in collusion. The only way to know, is to post all their mails back for two years and have the internet trawl thru the lot. And let's dump my kids swim team and soccer board of directors' emails - I'm sure there's a conflict of interest there about what kid should get the most-improved trophy. The soccer moms would love to see those discussions.
Silly ? Maybe. My point is, if anyone is taking a principled stance on transparency of those 'in power,' they must be willing to have that principle extended to every group that's 'in power.' Love to hear why it makes sense to just pick on the US. Why someone else - especially an egomaniac like Assange - gets to decide what targets are worthy of complete transparency. After all, my little Joe didn't get the most improved trophy, yet the board's kid did, and the world - er, sorry, the rest of the soccer team's parents - demands that those who made this decision be held accountable.
So I'll leave this post - fully expecting it to be moded out of existence with this thought. For me, dumping the deliberations of my kids soccer board is probably more pertinent, then some lifer with the state department saying that some head of state has bad breath.
So, let's start leaking !