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
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.
... countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you).
Journalistic shield laws are a terrible idea. Freedom of expression should be recognized for all citizens, not reserved for a privileged elite.
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.
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 that's all you learned from the Diplomatic Cables, you should put down the gossip magazines and start reading serious news.
Things the diplomatic cables revealed:
1. The USA was bombing Yemen and lied to the American people about it. The Yemeni government provided cover for the USA's involvement.
2. Confirmation that the Chinese government directed the hacking of Google's servers in China
3. Our ally Kuwait refuses to take back the Kuwaitis we've picked up in Afghanistan and have been holding in Guantanamo
4. Funding for al-Qaeda, is still flowing from various rich individual in Saudi Arabia (our ally)
5. Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, is on the CIA payroll and a major drug dealer.
6. Indian politicans were giving and receiving bribes in order to vote for a nuclear deal with the USA
7. The US Government was secretly lobbying New Zealand and Canada to institute shitty copyright laws
8. The State Dept pushed The Washington Post into watering down a story about security contractors bribing Afghans with drugs and teen partyboys
9. The USA used the acceptance of Guantanamo detainees as bargaining chips
10. US troops rounded up and shot 11 people, then called in a missile strike to cover their murders.
Feel free to go point by point and argue why there isn't a "compelling public interest reason for disclosure"
From what we've seen, a lot of what gets classified is either embarrassing, illegal, or a war crime.
Not anything whose disclosure would be a threat to national security, unless you consider justice a threat.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Blah blah blah. You're rehearsing all these old arguments about journalistic responsibility. Here's the problem: the leaks are so big that it's impossible to know what's in them. No single organization has the resources to pick through them and find everything of interest. Once it has been ascertained that they contain some information which it is in the public interest to release, the choice is between releasing everything and releasing practically nothing. Only releasing relevant documents is simply not practical.
The analogy with personal communications is a false one. The diplomatic cables were produced by government officials while they were in work getting paid to write them. They are not personal communications.