Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Suspends Publishing Of Cables Due To "Financial Blockade"
lee1 writes "Wikileaks has had to cease publishing classified files due to what the organization calls a 'blockade by US-based finance companies' that, according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has 'destroyed 95% of our revenue.' Assange also opined that 'A handful of US finance companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket.' According to Assange the group was taking 'pre-litigation action' against the financial blockade in Iceland, Denmark, the UK, Brussels, the United States, and Australia. They have also filed an anti-trust complaint with the European Commission."
Since all the major credit card companies are based in the United States, they are free to push their national interests through financial attacks. Let's not forget the numerous and notorious failures of Paypal. There is a slow but steady drive to decentralize everything that has become concentrated enough to control these aspects of our lives.
WikiLeaks would need $3.5 mln over the next 12 months to maintain its current levels of operations, he said.
Either they've signed up for the world's most expensive hosting plan, or Assange and his friends are running up quite a nightclub tab.
With the U.S. government now controlling all the major credit card companies and banks, I guess they really are the world emperors and overlords. And I, for one, would like to welcome our new Yank overlords.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Given that the financial blockade was well in place before that release, the chronology of your account seems more than a trifle suspect...
You threaten to publish the secret, evil, nefarious ways of financial institutions, claim to have a hard drive full of incriminating information, and now these same financial institutions now won't deal with you?
Why... I never. How demonic indeed!
Before people will be able to render an opinion, they need to also face an uncomfortable truth: That the people who control the world's money also have a non-impartial agenda which they will assert when it suits them to do so.
This isn't a "political" issue as much as it is a personal one. Note that the flow of money to Wikileaks was not inhibited until they decided to leak things about banks. That's when they started to choke Wikileaks' money flow.
After the people are made to recognize this fact, that's when they can make an opinion about whether this is good or bad.
The rulers of the world are exposing themselves through their actions. And the activities of late are showing who controls the government... hint: it's not the people.
Mod parent up - Now is the time to publish any and all of the leaks they have on financial institutions. Fight back!
The corporate media and the fickle public will NEVER digest a huge leak -- it has to be slowly leaked out over time so if we hear anything we hear the SAME bit of leak information at the same time everywhere and not too much that it gets skipped over.
If you dump it all out on a friday, you'll only hear about some diplomat screwing some presidents wife for the next few weeks and maybe a couple things the station doesn't mind reporting. Then the whole thing dies down and they don't talk about the rest of it anymore. Something like that happens all the time; especially on friday media dumps. (most people don't read the paper; tv, radio are not watched friday night or much on the weekend either.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
A handful of companies can make sure that you get the media attention, or not. a handful of other companies can decide whether you get the funds to be able to get the media attention, or not. So it goes.
This is why all the representative democracies on the planet are failing. Because the only ones that can be seen and elected, are those that the powerful few private interests allow people to see.
Wikileaks has been a prime example that exhibited how crooked our media/finance system, and how they are able to limit everyone's alleged liberties at their private whim - You are only as free as the size of your wallet, and then again only if you are compatible with those who would allow/bar you from using your wallet.
Read radical news here
Amnesty International blasted Assange for repeated leaks where he didn't redact civilian volunteer names, leading to civilian volunteers coming under death threats.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED
WikiLeaks won Amnesty International 2009 Media Award. That's what the organization thinks of the other organization. What did happen, and you're misremembering it the way t was designed to be misremembered, is that one individual that worked for AI made a comment blasting Assange. That individual did not represent the organization. And the death threats were the same hypothetical threats that were U.S. official FUD all along, nothing real.
You can't take the sky from me...
Wikileaks has taken on the two most powerful kinds of organisations in the world, the pillars of the international political system and the global marketplace. It directly damaged the interests of the government of the world most powerful sovereign state (still the USA) and made noises about hurting corporate financial institutions. That's a tall order for any organisation.
Wikileaks put itself in a particularly hard spot because it hasn't played well with others. It took an 'our way or the highway' approach to disclosure. It also released information that no one was asking for, so it didn't make allies with its disclosures. Moreover, it didn't support or enable calls for specific kinds of disclosure from existing organisation. Now it's isolated and atrophying because no one can operate at that level without allies for long.
Mod parent up - Now is the time to publish any and all of the leaks they have on financial institutions. Fight back!
He can't. His stash of information is like a gun with one bullet. He can shoot, but if he doesn't kill his enemy dead then he's finished--and he's facing multiple enemies. So he's dangerous only as long as he doesn't pull the trigger and I seriously doubt that he's got any information that could neutralize his opponents. Embarrass, yes; neutralize, no. But then the banks would just be even more pissed off and, with no fear of further embarassment, would strangle him and Wikileaks financially until he's homeless and living under a bridge (or in jail). So he's in a very poor strategic position and won't be getting out of it unless he can find some major ally who will come to his defense. And he's pissed off just about everyone with enough power to really help him.
No, they've got Assange right where they want him. He's isolated, effectively muzzled, trapped in a corner, and the financial institutions can wait him out indefinitely without ever facing any serious negative backlash.
Agreed, that never happened. Poster was repeating a Fox News falsehood.
The Man cut the money hose to stop us leaking, so we'll show him... why, by golly, we'll not leak anything until we get more money in our pockets.
Yes, well done, very convincing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This isn't about principle or money. It's about Assange fighting for the Wikileaks brand name.
No, it's about money. It's Assange saying "if you want to see the leaked documents from xxxx, I need my pound of flesh." It's how they do fund raising.
If it was about getting the information to the public, they'd simply post a torrent. If it was about Wikileaks getting credit they could just put banner files in the archives like the warez groups do. But that doesn't give Assange money to fly around the world or support his agendas.
This is Assange promoting Assange.
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
In the first pass, you can see the reporter with the camera in question. And he isn't at the front of the group. They pass around a building and you lose sight of the group for a moment. But before then, you can see it is someone else who reaches the corner of the building first. He is the one who points the object at the helicopter. And what he points is considerably larger than the camera that you see seconds before.
There was only one reporter on the scene. Everyone else in the group was carrying weapons. When the group is shot, the reporter is in the back (not in the front where this object in question was being pointed at the helicopter). No one else was carrying a camera.
When Assange himself was questioned on the matter, he said the object could have in fact been an RPG. Even he didn't dispute that point. His argument was more that the American troops didn't have the right to fire on the van. And while I would agree that is questionable, I don't know you can easily chalk that up to outright murder. The troops didn't open fire without permission. They didn't randomly fire on just anyone. There were armed troops that pointed a weapon at them. If you're seen as aiding the enemy, then you're placing yourselves in danger. It isn't unreasonable for troops to react that way. This is a questionable decision that I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge. But I certainly wouldn't call it murder.
I haven't served in combat. I don't claim to know what it is like. I was in the Marine Corps though. During boot camp they ran us through a fake drill where we were issued orders and told we were shipping off for war. An entire company of Marines (6 platoons of 60-70) sat in a room. Every single one was saying that they didn't want to go to combat. I didn't hear a single voice saying, "man, I just want to kill people!"
Is it possible that individuals sign up during wartime because they do want to shoot people? Certainly. But I don't assume all soldiers are evil, nor that they want to kill people. But I have been told several times over again that all US soldiers are blood-thirsty killers. And I give these guys a little leeway because I don't think most people are asking themselves what they'd really do in a combat situation. Most people here have never had to lay their life on the line for others and don't know what it is to make such decisions.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
People manage to distribute petabytes of illegal material daily on bittorrent. Assange can't find a way to distribute megabytes?
The real story is that Assange can't make a dime off seeding a few torrents, and so he's not interested.
Advice: on VPS providers
He can't. His stash of information is like a gun with one bullet. He can shoot, but if he doesn't kill his enemy dead then he's finished--and he's facing multiple enemies. So he's dangerous only as long as he doesn't pull the trigger
He was finished as soon as he started pulling shit like 'insurance policies' and scheduled weekly leaks out of his ass. Rather than being a paragon of honesty and open deliberation he's chosen to showboat, counter-extort, obfuscate, and generally do everything possible to start a personal Cold War between him and the entire western world.
In fact, the Cold War is an extremely apt analogy. He's basically saying exactly what the US and Soviets said about each other: "If I'm doing anything bad it's because I absolutely have to or they'll annihilate me in an instant, and anyway they started it and they're doing ten times worse!"
It may be perfectly true that wikileaks can't survive any other way, but if this is how they're going to operate then they're effectively no more than an independent intelligence agency, minus the torturing. The CIA isn't exactly a wonderful, admirable organization, even if you believe it has to exist, and neither is wikileaks.
Put another way, a necessary evil is still evil.