Slashdot Mirror
Former Wikileaks Spokesman Destroyed Documents
bs0d3 writes "Former Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files that had been sent from unknown informants and are now apparently lost irrevocably. Among the files destroyed are the US gov's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right wing organizations. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is now known as one of the founders of openleaks."
If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)
I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece.
In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.
Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
There are two things an architect of a whistleblowing platform must never do: revealing the identity of informants and accepting submissions without publishing them. I despise Domscheit-Berg for keeping WikiLeaks from publishing that data. Who knows what risks were taken to get this information on that hard disk.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
Consider this:
That's completely false.
Prior to a certain point in history, the word "liberal" was used to describe a platform of liberty. In other words, the exact opposite of today. At some point, the progressives co-opted the term so that they could sound more appealing to people that loved liberty. Much like how many nations that ruled by communist or military dictatorships have had "Democratic" or "Republic" in their names. Also, around the time of the founding of this nation, the word "Democrat" was a slur, used to indicate that a person pandered to the whims of the uninformed, emotional masses. Just putting that out there.
So, you can see how that worked out because people like you are running around saying how liberal the Republicans used to be. Yes, they were. They loved liberty. Some still do, but unfortunately, many have come along that like use fear of terrorism to increase the power of the federal government and thus reduce liberty. But that's not just a Republican issue, because the Democrats kept it going when they had the chance to change things.
And while I'm not really a religious person myself, I have to recognize that faith has been an important part of the lives of many, many, many people since the birth of this nation (and obviously long before that). The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them. Your words are tinged with disdain, and that's your prerogative, but try and understand history before you come off spouting about the "bible-thumpers" as if religious people have not been around since the beginning, and as if they don't deserve a place in modern society and a say in government.
There is "right" and there is "lawful." They are not always the same things.
Consider this:
Before the Republican party allied itself with the bible-thumpers...
The lack of awareness of history in that sentence is stunning.
The Republicans were "Bible Thumpers" from their very creation. The biggest motivation in their anti-slavery crusades was religious. Until the Democrats starting turning against the churches in the 1960's, every major American political party... Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Republicans... had a huge, heapin' helping of the Bible in their platforms. Even when parties opposed each other, they often used Biblical citations in their party planks. Both the conservative and progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th century were largely motivated by religious concerns. The Temperence movement was religiously based. The progressive movement was religiously based.
"Bible Thumping" in politics is part and parcel of American history. It's been deeply intertwined in American politics since the nation came into being.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Why this person is still able to freely roam the streets without fear. someone betrays people, like this, and still is able to live a normal life. noone stops them on their way home and holds them accountable.
There's nothing more pathetic than an Internet bad-ass.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Certainly though, if a cop is lawfully arresting you, and has his gun drawn, you shouldn't pull yours out and open fire. That's not self-defense.
Not necessarily true.
What if the current law says that you need to be hauled away to a concentration camp and murdered, and the cop is "just doing his job" in arresting you and sticking you on the train bound for the concentration camp?
In this case, you're entirely justified in shooting the cop, whether he's arresting you, or anyone else. In fact, you're not just justified, but you're doing the right and moral thing by executing him. He deserves to die for upholding such an evil law.
Personally, I think punishments for police and other government officials should be much, much, much harsher than for regular people. If you can't even trust your own government, then your society is failing, so strong protections should be put into place to protect the people from government abuses.
And now, both the Democrats *and* the Republicans are "Extreme Federalists", and they are ALL elitist prigs now.
Regards,
dj
Yes and if you go far enough back liberal means modern-day libertarian. Conservative and liberal are labels that really only make sense in a time and place context. Which is why a little tiny part of me dies whenever people refer to parties with similar names 200 years ago in relation to modern politics.
And the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party created by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist and monopoly buster. "Libertarian", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Republican", etc all representing different beliefs depending upon the timeframe you look at.
Which brings me to the silliness of party loyalty. Even if beliefs aren't shifting in your lifetime party loyalty is counterproductive. If you are a party loyalist then your party can ignore you, they already have your vote. Meanwhile the other party can also ignore you because there is nothing they can do to receive your vote.
If you want your opinion to count you can not be loyal to a party. You must give every candidate a chance and make them earn your vote through their policy positions.
The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them.
Seems reasonable enough. Who doesn't remember the touching scene in the Gospel of Mises(10:12-26) where Jesus selflessly defends the moneychangers in the temple from excessive capital gains taxes? Or the section shortly thereafter when he resists the blandishments of Judas, the liberal, and upholds intellectual property rights and avoids creating an underclass dependent on handouts by refusing the pirate the loaves and fishes?
All jest aside, the only way a 'bible-thumper' could endorse contemporary Republican(or, for that matter, contemporary Democratic) policy is by making sure not to read past the old testament, and, even there, some amount of studious ignoring will be required...
currently, there are no repercussions for being a public enemy and harming millions.
To whom are you referring? I consider people who treacherously steal hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, and those who help them do so while also making those documents available to the regimes in Iran and North Korea to be, indeed, public enemies. Certainly that betrays the trust of millions of people, and harms many, both directly and indirectly. Certainly being held in jail while facing trial for doing so counts as repercussion, wouldn't you say?
Or are you complaining that a person who deletes a bunch of stolen documents is the one who is the public enemy? Or is that person only a public enemy if the deleted documents are unrelated to people with whom you agree on one matter or another?
There are all sorts of repercussions for not meeting society's expectations. Everything from losing your publicly elected or appointed office to being killed by SEALs in your not-very-secret Pakistani compound or going to jail for running an investment Ponzi scheme.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A bible-thumper uses the bible as a blunt instrument, there is no requirement that they understand the writings within.
Some idiot talking head on Fox actually called Warren Buffet a socialist. If there was ever a need for the phrase "I don't think that word means what you think it means" that was surely it. The problem is capital gains taxes. The truly rich don't earn paychecks. they take dividends from their investments, or stock options from their boards. Raising income taxes isn't going to hurt them. Thats why Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate then his secretary. It's not hyperbole, it's actually true. He is being taxed at 15% on the majority of his income. Any of you all being taxed at 15%? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?