The Paradox of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

schnell writes "The New Statesman is publishing a new in-depth article that examines in detail the seemingly paradoxical nature of WikiLeaks' brave mission of public transparency with the private opaqueness of Julian Assange's leadership. On one hand, WikiLeaks created 'a transparency mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account' when nobody else could or would. On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.' If WikiLeaks performs a public service exposing the secrets of others but censors its own secrets, does it really matter? Or are the ethics of the organization and its leader inseparable?"

Comments

A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[crazyjj]

Julian Assange may be a bit cocky, but keep in mind that a lot of this "Cult of Assange" shit and a lot of the infighting reports came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a person of VERY questionable motives and honesty--to say the least. His dubious book is the source of many of these reports.

Now personally, I've always strongly suspected that Domscheit-Berg was an intelligence plant at Wikileaks (working for the CIA, BND, or take your pick). He started to physically sabotage the organization pretty much from day one, acted a lot like an agent provocateur when he was there, destroyed some 3,500 unpublished whistleblower communications as he was leaving, immediately went on a campaign to discredit Wikileaks and Assange after he left, and then unsuccessfully tried to set up a leaks site himself that sounded suspiciously like a honeypot to me (send us your leaked documents and trust us to maybe release them to the press--or maybe just send some FBI agents to kick down your door). And apparently Assange suspected this too.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[crazyjj]

Yeah, those rapists.

I remember a guy who made a speech calling for a global currency to challenge the dollar. Turns out he became a rapist too, just a few months after making that speech in fact. Well, he was a rapist for a while anyway. The DA later admitted that the previously "rock solid" case against him was completely bogus--exactly three days after his successor at the IMF took office. Coincidental timing, I guess.

But then I guess I would be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggested that there was anything suspicious about the timing of some rape charges.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[RevDisk]

If he was a plant, he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself and would still quietly be working at Wikileaks, sabotaging whatever he could. Or giving at least a heads-up to his handlers. Don't get me wrong, informants can be problematic and handlers can be dumb. But all and all, if he was on the take, he'd be acting differently.

Incompetence or ego is significantly more likely than malice.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

States - in modern, representative democracies, are accountable to the people who fund the state for common welfare and interest.

The transparency and accountability of the state is different in imperative from that of the individual - who has an expectation of privacy to guarantee the conduct of free expression and personal liberty.

Equating Assange's alleged personal characteristics and style of management with the opaqueness and corruption committed by states acting in excess of their authority is false. Doing so reflects a very poor understanding of any of the core rights and issues that are at the heart of the WikiLeaks mission.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Migraineman]

Further, last time I checked, Assange didn't have a police force or military with which to enforce his Rule of Law upon his subjects.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks also lacks the ability to cause a global financial crisis.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[crazyjj]

I'm just glad that those of you who think that all conspiracies are just the product of paranoia weren't in charge of the Watergate invesitgation--or Iran/Contra, or the torture and extreme rendition allegations, etc. There is a big difference between thinking that black helicopters are circling your house monitoring your brainwaves and thinking that the CIA engages in operations against foreign individuals deemed a threat to U.S. interests.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[doom]

I like the Daniel Domscheit-Berg book myself, without being able to swear to it's veracity. It has the ring of truth about it, and while there are places where I disagree with the author I think the mistakes he makes are the ones that idealistic hackers are prone to -- e.g. he underrates the value of having a poster-boy like Assange (a position for which being egocentric is almost a job requirement), and D seemed to be groping for a purely technical solution to the wikileaks problem that would take all human decision-making out of the system (good luck with that...).

The idea that D was planted on Assange is crazy: he was with him too long, no one knew who Assange was when D started working with him.

D's "openleaks" project might've been a front of some sort, but couldn't you say the same thing about "wikileaks"? And even if these projects don't start that way, what stops them from being subverted later?

If you're going to play whistle-blower, watch your butt... myself I doubt it can be done anonymously at all, and the real trouble with wikileaks and co is that it encourages people to believe that that's possible.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Reverand Dave]

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems that they are throwing out this huge red herring to deter from the fact that they are doing some incredibly shady things. It's like they're trying to say "that guy's an asshole so all of the bad shit about us doesn't matter because he's an asshole."

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[markass530]

right, do as I say, not as I do, sounds legit.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes.

It's called a "disinformation campaign".

And Jemimah Khan? She is a prize disinformation agent. Connected by birth and marriage to both the Windsors and the Rothschilds, and having been married to Imran Khan... The high-wierdness of her connections to seats of power - both public and covert - are beyond the imaginings of fiction.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[hairyfeet]

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass if Assange's favorite sport is kicking little old ladies down the stairs because all these "articles" are just plants (see the post above you with an expose on where a LOT of them come from) trying to get us away from the truth which is its not about anybody at Wikileaks its about THE DATA which nobody has ever claimed is less than 100% genuine, even the governments who dirty laundry was aired.

I mean here you have this huge pile of docs that show corruption, dirty dealing, even human trafficking by a PMC yet we are supposed to ignore ALL that and pay attention to whether Assange is an asshole or not? Does anybody else feel a "ignore the man behind the curtain" going on here? At the end of the day I don't give a shit if Assange walks around in slippers made from freshly killed puppies, because he AIN'T the one dropping bombs, hiring PMCs, and stirring shit up all over the world causing countless deaths, is here? I mean if he is the biggest douchebag in the history of douchebags, so what? focus on the data, THAT is what is important!

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[doom]

Assange is effectively an enemy spy. If he is apprehended by the US he should be charged and tried as such.

I see, so you regard his fears of "extraordinary rendition" as entirely reasonable?

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[hairyfeet]

While I agree this is a classic "look over there!" kind of tactic by those whose dirty laundry is now on Wikileaks the whole "accountable to the people" is just bullshit. How many protest were there against the war in Iraq? How many marches? didn't change a thing did it? did occupy accomplish anything besides getting a bunch more names added to the watchlist?

The simple fact is for several decades the people have been ignored because those in power have a revolving door between DC and big business. if you "throw the bums out" the bums get cushy jobs at the companies they shilled for and the next guy has a big fat check waiting when he walks through the door. Why do you think Obama upheld and even expanded so many of Bush's policies with the left so against them? Because its kayfabe, just like pro wrestling. they handed him a check and told him STFU and read the cue card.

This is why all the "debates" end up being over something like gay rights or abortions, these are things the big corps don't give a shit about and so allowing the people argue over them doesn't hurt the bottom line. But if you think the people have any choice deeper than Coke VS Coke in a different shaped bottle I have a bridge to nowhere you may be interested in, politics is a billion dollar business and big corps pull the strings.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[Darinbob]

This sounds paranoid. Someone is opposed to your god-king and thus you must turn him into the devil.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[hairyfeet]

Honestly I don't give a rat's ass if Manning was gay or Assange is fucking goats, all I care about is the DATA, that is what matters. Did everyone forget that Woodward and Bernstein were treated like shit by many in the editorial column, even being called communists which back then was like being called traitor? Didn't change those canceled checks from CREP to the plumbers though, did it?

At the end of the day there are thousands of documents that NOBODY disputes the reality of, even the government whose dirty laundry they bear, and THAT is what we should be focusing on. Spending all our time giving a shit about Assange would be like an investigation into whether Woodward fucked around or Bernstein cheated on his taxes...who gives a fuck? Its not ABOUT them, its ABOUT the bold faced lies we have been sold for decades, going all the way back to the Gulf of Tonkin and probably beyond. thousands, maybe even millions, have died because of lies by men who stood to profit from war, yet we are supposed to ignore this? Fuck you, lets focus on the real issue and that ain't whether Assange is a dick or not!

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[martin-boundary]

I'd mod you up if I could. The media focus too much on personality cults, and will try to create them if they don't exist. That misses the point completely. Only facts create a strong reason for people to act. One guy's personality alone doesn't.

Wikipedia's great contribution is to be among the few outlets that give us raw unadulterated facts, not some journalist's idea of a good story. As long as they continue to do this, they deserve full support. Nothing else matters.

Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction

[flaming error]

" I'd like somebody else to take their place"

Well, go for it.

Get whistleblowers throughout society and the world to send you confidential information at risk of their employment if not liberty.

Make sure that as you collect and publicize this highly sensitive information, your execution is unquestionable, you publicize every word you and your staff ever hear or say, and that you don't come across as an asshole to fraudulent execs, overreaching governments, armchair patriots, or anonymous cowards.

If offended governments level criminal charges at you, trumped up or valid, you should turn yourself in immediately and just continue your work from Guantanamo or whatever enhanced interrogation facility you are delivered to.

Do all that, and a few of us will, in appreciation, donate 5 to 50 bucks to your organization. But most of us will just Godwin you from the comfort of our sofa.

Paparazzi for The Firm

[alphatel]

People are people, so why should it be, you and I should know everything about each other? Good fences make good neighbors?
Corporations however, are either breaking your heart, or shaking your confidence daily, so you need to have loads of info on them.
Or was that my pretend girlfriend Cecilia that I was stalking? Either way, you totally understand what I am saying.

One can't be 100% transparent

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks and all of the people working for it are OBVIOUSLY going to need to obfuscate details about themselves. Look at the absolutely living nightmare of a shitstorm that Assange has been dragged through. Look where he is now.

But no, hey, let's be transparent. How about all of the contacts at Wikileaks post their full contact information. SURELY nobody on earth has any axe to grind against them, and they will remain in perfect harmony and safety.

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[genghisjahn]

So, due to the nature of their work, Wikileaks needs to keep some things secret. Governments can't follow the same rationale?

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[fredprado]

Nope, because governments and corporations are not people. They are virtual entities created and empowered by groups of people and have the responsibility to be transparent regarding what use they do of the power they receive from these people.

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[aaaaaaargh!]

Governments can't follow the same rationale?

They're doing it and Wikileaks acts against it. What's your point? Surely governments and wikileaks are two completely different kinds of entities with completely different aims and purposes, just because Wikileaks advocates government transparency doesn't mean or imply in any way that they ought to advocate wikileaks transparency. There is no "paradox" to start with.

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[__aaeihw9960]

While governments and corporations are not people, I would argue that governments, at least, have some right to privacy in certain situations.

Again, like with most things, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Should I know how my congressman voted on the last counter-espionage act? Absolutely. Should I know roughly what the spies that now receive funding are doing? Absolutely. Should I know where they're doing it or who they are? No. Maybe I should roughly know where they're operating - as in region of the planet. But, for their safety, and the safety of their operation, they deserve some privacy.

People like you need to stop making the argument that government and corporations are: (a) the same thing and (b) bound to laws that are always black and white all the time. Believe it or not, there is a shit-load of gray area in the world.

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[fredprado]

Wikileaks is accountable and has a duty of transparency to the people that create and empower it in their names, just like governments. It is just a hell lot less people. Assange is accountable and has a duty of transparency about his life with no one but himself

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[Yakasha]

No, they do not. Privacy means no accountability, which means absolute trust and absolute power, which is always stupid.

But that is not how most governments, including the United States, are structured. Privacy can mean personal privacy, or it can mean privacy within a select group. The President's authority is only what Congress, the Courts, & the Constitution give him (supposedly). The Constitution structures our government in a way so that even in the case of private matters, there is accountability.

This discussion sounds like it is going to be like math vs. physics though. You think the world is a perfect system where governments can be 100% open and still be successful in some way. Others acknowledge that humans are involved. Greedy, selfish, assholes that will sell their own grandmother just for the sake of knowing they sold their own grandmother.

Re:One can't be 100% transparent

[fredprado]

On the contrary, I think the world is highly imperfect where the governments are seldom accountable for anything, have far too much power, hide way too many things, and get away with doing pretty much anything they want, and it gets worse as time passes and technology further empower such governments.

"to produce ... a more just society"

[schneidafunk]

My problem with wikileaks is its heavy anti-american bias. It seems like he wants to embarrass the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassment, and not to make the world "a more just society".

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[phantomfive]

The biggest surprise of the leaks was that the US didn't have more to be embarrassed about.....

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[drinkypoo]

My problem with wikileaks is its heavy anti-american bias. It seems like he wants to embarrass the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassment, and not to make the world "a more just society".

If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia. They're the nations who are wandering around the planet dicking with other nations' governments the most, selling the most military hardware and/or engaging in the most metanational corporate activity. We could argue all day over whether these nations are truly in competition or are really engaged in dividing the globe up between themselves in a way they see as equitable and it wouldn't change a damn thing for the average man on the street anywhere in the world, including within these nations.

The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny. And unfortunately, the more scrutiny you subject this government to, the more serious malfeasance you find. At some point you expect things to stop getting worse, but they don't; the system is rotten to the core. It might well look like the USA is being singled out, but perhaps the truth is that the USA is simply up to more misdeeds. The facts seem to support this hypothesis.

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[Bob9113]

My problem with wikileaks is its heavy anti-american bias. It seems like he wants to embarrass the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassment, and not to make the world "a more just society".

How could we possibly be embarrassed by our actions? We are a just society, and so it cannot possibly embarrass us for our actions to be published. If we are not guilty, we have nothing to hide.

On a more serious note, have you actually looked at, for example, the diplomatic cables? They mostly show the US attempting to protect the interest of its major lobbies, as we would expect. But it shows a lot of foreign diplomats selling out their citizens to our lobbies. We look like a bully, those foreign diplomats look like grovelling dogs.

You can see the effect by looking at EU copyright developments. The US is still doing what we've been doing, strong-arming people at the bidding of a few big K-street clients. But the EU diplomats have been chastened, and are not simply rolling over and hoping to get their bellies scratched.

I haven't looked at the rest, but as for the diplomatic cables, they are much more embarrassing to our puppet states than to us.

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[fredprado]

Sorry to break the news to you, but American business interests is the de facto American government.

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[DigiShaman]

Or maybe the fact Wikileaks doesn't want to deal with any other culture but the West. Perhaps it's a language barrier, lack of inside contacts, or the fact they don't give a damn. So they focus on the USA because it's such an easy target with low hanging fruit to exploit in the wild. Something like a never ending piñata that you can beat over and over to collect from a bottomless pit of goodies. Well guess what, such piñata's exist all over the world. Not that it matters. So yes, there is a bias. Without question!

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[Yakasha]

The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny.

The issue here is that most people equate American business interests across the globe to American government. Like it or not, they're two different things with two different aims. One aims to protect profits, one aims to protect itself. I'll let you figure out which one is which.

No, the issue is that people can't tell the difference because protecting profits and itself has become so intertwined. The Department of Homeland Security was all over San Francisco before the Super Bowl arresting people for selling counterfeit NFL gear. The US military is deployed around the world to "protect American interests". Well, what interests would those be? Is the entire planet gearing up to invade us? Or is it actually some business venture that the military is protecting?

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[Marxdot]

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China

but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days

You said it, so it must be true.

Take it for what it is.

[Dancindan84]

Anywhere you get news is going to have an agenda or be hypocritical to some extent (some obviously more than others). It's human nature. Take that into account when evaluating the information they give and look at sources from other perspectives as well before making informed decisions. If you wanted to disregarded news because the source was jaded in some way, you'd have to cut yourself off from media altogether.

Where is the balance?

[coastwalker]

We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.

Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.

We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.

Re:Where is the balance?

[drinkypoo]

We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.

I'll worry more about that when they have more competition. I want done what they are doing. If they're the only hope of transparency, then I'm going to back them. If another, more credible hope appears, I'll back them instead.

Re:Where is the balance?

[Applekid]

We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.

Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.

We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.

If I committed crimes and acted in bad faith while people died through my actions and inactions, my arrest records, mug shots, and all my secrets would be revealed in court. Rightly so, I would also argue.

So the question is, has Wikileaks published the contents of people's lives who have not done any wrong? If they start doing that, then we can start the criticism.

The lack of consequences to the behavior of governments is because the people don't demand them, because they have swallowed the pill that Wikileaks puts troops in harms way, that trumped up and manufactured rape charges are true, and that those who leak information to them are traitors. Plus they wouldn't even do anything anyway if doors were getting kicked in and people getting rounded up into boxcars.

Re:Where is the balance?

[fredprado]

We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.

Because governments are not people. They should not enjoy any rights of privacy at all. It is anathema to what they stand for,

Re:Where is the balance?

[Americano]

I've neither seen nor heard evidence that any innocents were damaged by the publication of materials that were outed by Wikileaks.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Assange himself has admitted that innocents have been killed (not just 'damaged') by the publication of materials outed by Wikileaks.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

(source)

He goes on to whitewash that figure by citing malaria statistics - I guess in Africa, if you're responsible for killing fewer people than the average yearly death toll from malaria, you're eligible for sainthood, and all your sins are forgiven.

You can't play it both ways - either there are real world consequences for the publication of the data that you own the responsibility for, or there are no real world consequences and all you're doing is play-acting in front of a camera. Which is it?

I live in the states, and I've been listening to people call for accountability[...]

So you've noticed that there's a difference between what people say, and what they do, have you? Welcome to conscious existence. People have been calling for accountability, and re-electing the same bunch of retards and crooks every couple years, because "it's not MY GUY who's the problem - he's helping us out here! It's those R's or D's from other places who need to get tossed out on their asses!"

Until the public understands and accepts that accountability means more than "bitching to my co-worker who agrees with me while we have lunch," the accountability won't happen. There need to be actual teeth behind the threats of "voting for the other guy," "initiating recalls and impeachments," and other penalties for behaving badly.

In informing people of things governments need to be held accountable for, Wikileaks *does* provide a valuable service. The problem is, that value is often overshadowed by Assange's attention-seeking and grandstanding behavior.

propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

It's incredible how anti-Assange the US media is. They even try to create this pseudo-opinion of "I am really progressive and don't like war and all that, but Assange is just not right not to come clean about this."

This is nothing but an empire fighting using the media, and some "intellectuals" not quite realizing how serious the situation really is. Of course the US government wants him dead and we know the US government kills right and left with no considerations for anything.

Re:propaganda

[dkleinsc]

It's incredible how anti-Assange the US media is. They even try to create this pseudo-opinion of "I am really progressive and don't like war and all that, but Assange is just not right not to come clean about this."

The US media is anti-Assange because the US government is anti-Assange. US news organizations have basically declared themselves tools of the government. Some examples of this:
- There was recently a dust-up over the New York Times revealing the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia, a drone base that several news organizations had known about for 2 years but never reported on, even though its existence had been covered in other media. In other words, there was no legitimate reason to keep its existence secret, because any bad guys would have been able to find out about it using a sophisticated tool known as "Google", but media organizations in the US didn't say a word about it because the government asked them to keep it a secret.

- Cenk Uygur was hired at MSNBC because of his successful online news program. He does a few shows, but then one of the network execs pulls him aside and tells him that some politicians in Washington don't like his reporting, so he needs to change it. Cenk didn't change it, and was promptly fired.

- Several news organizations sat on a story that provided significant evidence of a massive illegal domestic surveillance program run by the Bush administration. For a year and a half. For the sole reason that the Bush administration had asked them to. It just so happened that that year and a half gave Bush enough time to be re-elected in the interim.

Also, there's no major news organization that doesn't like war. War is exciting and entertaining. War draws in viewers and readers. War sells ads for the armed forces and cool guns and fast cars and action-packed movie extravaganzas. Remember, if it's white and bleeds, it leads (not-white and bleeds may be acceptable if no white victims are available).

The difference is power

[Applekid]

Exposing secrets of powerful institutions that can manipulate the fate of humanity isn't in the same league as the secrets that organization may hold. Isn't even the same galaxy.

You can't take revenge and prosecute the powers that be. If you could, they wouldn't be powers and they wouldn't require whistleblowing. Wikileaks, on the otherhand, is very destructible.

Re:Wow. Simply wow.

[crazyjj]

How often do you need to have your tin-foil hat refitted?

You know, believe it or not, there are actual conspiracies in this world that are real. And there are actually real spies and real saboteurs whose job it is to infiltrate organizations deemed national security threats. They get paid to do it and everything.

After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?

Eh, that's just Assange's personality

[RevDisk]

He has an agenda. Which is fine. Except that he's not entirely open about it. It'd be more honest, but admittedly not as effective, if he just announced his intentions upfront and transparently. Are the folks he outs bad people? Probably. Doesn't mean he's a good guy. Half of the United States' foreign policy problems stem from a belief in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Not by a landslide.

Everyone has an axe to grind. Figuring it out is sometimes easy, sometimes extremely convoluted. Assange has an ego the size of the Vatican.

Re:Wow. Simply wow.

[drinkypoo]

I think most of the "Cult of Assenge" thing comes from open-minded and observant people like me who barely even know who this Daniel Domscheit-Berg is.

What does that have to do with anything? Whether you know who someone is or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are the origin of a meme you swallowed and began regurgitating.

Government transparency.....

[yuje]

is not incompatible with personal privacy.

Secrecy

[msheekhah]

The secrecy was designed to protect the volunteers that worked on his project. He was anonymous for a long time, before he was outed. He takes the safety of his volunteers seriously, even if he does work them pretty hard.

Re:Wow. Simply wow.

[Nemesisghost]

After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?

No, Goats

Livestrong

[kaze]

Is Livestrong's anti-cancer mission any less worthy now that Lance Armstrong is de-famed?

The problem of no transparency

[mpfife]

I'm glad someone wrote up an article about this. I'm actually for the kind of transparency he's promoting; and I think his work has shown that governments cannot and should not be allowed to hide from the truth. He's a brave new pioneer into the kind of work the 'free press' should be doing - but do not because of their limitations (should all reporters know basic hacking techniques in the future - question for another time). WRT the article, referring to his org as a cult is a bit much (but I'm sure there's elements in there as there always are), but here's the real problem with his organization:

His organization has and gets very secret information. This information is often so powerful/secret/damning that could potentially bring down banks, companies, individuals, or maybe even countries or at least their regimes. There are a number of problems with a sole person with this much power.
How do we know if he's not 'cherry-picking' information and just releasing what he wants to cause the reaction he wants? Does he fact-check anything he releases at all? We know news organizations Fox/NPR/et al can do exactly this to sway public opinion. Just because he's releasing information doesn't mean he's releasing ALL the information that would paint a full picture. It doesn't tell us if he's at all modified or tampered with that information. Unless the person who's accused comes out with counter-proof (if there is even a way if the leaked info was purely made up anyway), there is no way to know without a LOT of fact checking of likely terribly secret stuff. But the damage would be done by then. At best it turns into a credibility war; and with no transparency on either side - who are we to believe?
With information so central and key to financial and government systems, what is to keep Assange and co from going rouge and extorting or holding companies, countries or people for blackmail? "Just leave me alone Obama or I'll dump all that stuff about those drone strike kills you ordered". "Ok Goldman, give me 5 million dollars/year and a Lear jet or I leak how you knew about the housing collapse and fed into it" He very well could have information right now that could upset major governments and/or financial institutions, bankrupt huge corporations, and plunge the world into chaos/worse recession. With as somewhat unstable as he seems at times - do you really trust one man bouncing from country to country - living in hotel rooms - to make decisions to 'do the right thing' at all times?
These are all the exact same problems that news organizations have. They must fact check, and release information in a way that promotes truth in our organizations without destroying the very things we need to survive in a modern world. He has none of these burdens.

Re:The problem of no transparency

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'd agree with you, except Assange doesn't have some intrinsic power to information. His "power" is that he's trusted to release this information with the wides disbursal. The moment he develops the appearance if cherry picking, he loses that power and whistleblowers will use other outlets.

Article is missing the point

[jd659]

"WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation"

The article misses the point of the premise for more government transparency. The main idea is that the more damage a particular entity can do, the more transparency there should be. If a government can decide whom to kill, there should be a full disclosure of the protocol and a way to correct any errors. If such entity is an organization (say that supplies drinking water), there should be an equal transparency for the same reason that any misstep can do a lot of harm.

This universal principle does not get limited to a case of government vs. citizens. For example, if we as people grant special powers to a policeman to detain anyone while on the job, there should be rigorous checks and disclosures in place at the time when that policeman has those special powers. On the other hand, when he goes home and has no such privileges, his privacy should be protected just as anyone’s else.

Wikileaks is not about disclosing “everything about everyone,” but rather about preventing the abuse of power, which is very much a basic requirement for a healthy and just society.

Re:Also I don't pay taxes to Wikileaks

[tiedemann]

Perhaps the most important thing is to recognize the fact that Assange != WikiLeaks. I for one believe strongly in the latter but not the former. The real work has been done by other people - he's just what media (and some others) mistake for the same thing.

Let's symbolically punch this Blog in the face.

[Vitriol Angst]

On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'

Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.

I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?

I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.

Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.

Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.

The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.

Re:Let's symbolically punch this Blog in the face.

[elucido]

On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'

Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.

I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?

I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.

Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.

Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.

The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.

Julian Assange had/has plenty of power. He knows and has information. Information that he has is powerful if it's the kind which can put lives at risk.

The point is that Julian Assange is ultimately just a man. All men get corrupted over time just like all men age over time.

How can we remind you of fiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since WL does publish leaks about Russia:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html

Remind me, why do you insist on claiming they don't publish leaks about russia?

Re:Wow. Simply wow.

[gman003]

No Goatse.

Often they took the pictures.

No, you're thinking of the TSA.

Re:Wow. Simply wow.

[mattack2]

Before WWI there was NO property taxes, income taxes

In your universe, WWI happened before 1861?

From wikipedia:

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the US federal government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800) ($20,693 in 2013 dollars).