Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Losing Support From Anonymous
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that members of computer hacker collective Anonymous have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange. A statement linked from the Anonymous Twitter account, AnonymousIRC, described WikiLeaks as 'the one man Julian Assange show,' and complained that the website implemented a paywall seeking donations from users who wanted access to millions of leaked documents. 'The idea behind WikiLeaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know,' said the statement on behalf of Anonymous. The dispute could starve WikiLeaks of potentially newsworthy leaks in the future, as some of Wikileaks' recent disclosures – including the Stratfor emails – are alleged to have come from Anonymous."
except played out differently
Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation made up of a heirachy of people who all speak with the same voice, united under a single person.
Oh, hang on, no, they're made up of a whole slew of individuals who do not speak for each other. What was I thinking of.
Apparently, the Guardian didn't manage to break out of this incorrect belief about the structure of Anon.
paywall seeking donations
Paywall by definition means REQUIRED payment (fee). In contrast, a donation is a VOLUNTARY payment (gift)
So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.
Makes sense to me.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
So basically, they're having a lover's spat between thieves, and this is news why? Wikileaks sunk itself because it put all it's eggs in a basket named Julian. When you're fighting the good fight against a government, exposing and embarassing them, they're going to target your leaders. The first duty of any political movement is to ensure continuity; Because your leaders will be taken out of the game. Wikileaks was too centralized, and so all it took was removing this one guy and making three phone calls (to paypal, visa, and mastercard) to take it out of the game.
Wikileaks died of poor planning. It died of ego. And you know what: Good. Enough people have seen the need for a secure and anonymous disclosure of documents that are in the public's best interest to know, but come from citizens in oppressive countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you). The next incarnation of Wikileaks will not be captained by one man, it will not rely on easily co-opted financial institutions to survive, and... hopefully, that decentralization will also help the next version stay honest. It'll keep any one person's ego from taking center stage, and that'll mean more rational thinking, and hopefully lead to people focusing less on hurting a government they have a bone to pick with and more on telling people things they actually should know. Yes, that was a veiled reference to the diplomatic cable leaks -- Bad Plan, Darlings. We don't need to know that our diplomats are sexually promiscuous, or that they're having marital problems, etc. Those are private matters -- diplomat or not, we need to respect the privacy of others unless there's a compelling public interest reason for disclosure. If you can't do that, you'll never have anyone's respect -- because you're just settling grudges, not looking out for your country's best interest. And to the former crowd... I hope the police do come and bust your door down and spank the everloving crap out of you so you learn some manners. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
To my knowledge Assange is just the face of the company, people provide wikileaks with the info and Assange is the messenger.
It is important to realize that the messenger is the one getting the flogging, not those who have committed crimes or broken the law. Just the messenger. It's specifically a message from the government "If you mess with us and reveal our secrets we will lock you away like Bradley Manning!".
Citizens pay taxes, which fund governments which are be accountable to the public who pay the taxes, that's how it *should* work. What Assange is going through shows very clearly that when we attempt to hold those in power accountable for their actions, actions which they have kept(hidden) from the public, they will go after you tooth and nail. That's the country we live in folks, keep paying taxes and keep your mouth shut, or face the wrath of the government.
All 9/11 conspiracy theorists can fuck off and die. Seriously, you're not clever, you're not fighting for truth. You're assholes who don't realize they make as much sense as birthers or moon landing hoax nuts.
Just stop.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
computer hacker collective Anonymous.
I stopped reading right there. Emphasis mine.
There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.
Cryptrome do nothing, never have, never will. So, bullshit to yourself. Whether you like Assange or not, he has a face, he gets media coverage, which leads to media exposure of leaked information. At least until the CIA told Sweden to do a number on him.
Are you the stinking spawn of derivatives dealers? Hedge fund super-thieves, or just lowly bankster scum?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xA_glFb0oWs
NEWS FLASH!
Organization loses support from an unknown number of people who refuse to own up to their true identity.
You heard it here first, folks. We have no idea who isn't supporting Wilileaks anymore, but we do know that they claim to be numerous and belligerent.
The Guardian (as well as other MSM outlets) opposed publishing information regarding Israel, leading to Assange being called an agent of Israel. Assange managed to offend the ego of a Guardian 'journalist' so the journalist has it in for Assange. A Guardian 'journalist' leaked the key used to encrypt the so-called 'insurance' file. The Guardian as MSM is threatened by a successful Wikileaks model.
Who is the CIA contact at the Guardian?
The Guardian is not exactly an unbiased news source for matters related to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
The Guardian was one of the newspapers given access to the unredacted cables that sparked global controversy. Initially, they honored their promise to keep the source material secret - after all, it contained names of sources whose lives might depend upon anonymity.
The Guardian's "Investigative Editor" David Leigh decided it would be OK to publish a book about Assange and Wikileaks, which incredibly contained the password for the unredacted cables file already circulating on torrent sites.
How many lives David Leigh affected will never be known - but obviously after this, the relationship between Wikileaks and The Guardian soured dramatically.
Welcome to my foes list... you've demonstrated a remarkable lack of logic and basic thinking skills, and I wanted to be sure I never read anything you write again.
Go here: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html (or any one of their leak pages)
Click on any one of the articles on the left hand side.
Enjoy your paywall.
The moment Cryptome releases documents which are actually politically sensitive (you know, like the US cables, or the current Syrian emails), I might start taking them seriously.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!