Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Published Rape Victims' Names, Credit Cards, Medical Data (arstechnica.com)
Joe Mullin, writing for ArsTechnica: Even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sits trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, the WikiLeaks website continues to publish the secrets of various governments worldwide. But that's not all it's publishing. A report today by the Associated Press highlights citizens who had "sensitive family, financial or identity records" published by the site. "They published everything: my phone, address, name, details," said one Saudi man whose paternity dispute was revealed in documents published by the site. "If the family of my wife saw this... Publishing personal stuff like that could destroy people." One document dump, from Saudi diplomatic cables, held at least 124 medical files. The files named sick children, refugees, and patients with psychiatric conditions. In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. In two other cases, WikiLeaks published the names of teenage rape victims. "This has nothing to do with politics or corruption," said Dr. Nayef al-Fayez, who had a patient with brain cancer whose personal details were published.
Feels to me like a hit piece put out there to discredit the massive drops Wikileaks has be releasing lately. Rumor is they're sitting on the really good stuff until we're closer to the election.
This article is little more than fluff
Why wouldn't they? If, for example, I was mugged (say, both robbed and say beaten with a stick) in a foreign country, I could fully expect the police report to end up in a diplomatic transmission, which would include the stolen identity/credit card information as well as the medical records that described my injuries. Crimes against foreign nationals would often go though the State Department and whatever equivalent the other nation had.
I dont know the circumstances of all the cases described in these cases, but there are plenty of reasonable and legal reasons for a government body to have that information that does not involve Big Brother spying.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
RIGHT! Except Wikileaks' agenda is well known and isn't a fake secret, unlike the unholy alliance between the media and everything in the DNC.
Here is a short list of media with ties to Obama / DNC insiders. Where is the disclaimers during their broadcasts? I've never seen one.
ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.
His counterpart at CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.
CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.
White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.
NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.
The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.
[VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.
But we are supposed to believe that there is no bias in the MSM news organizations.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This again? You haven't been paying attention. Sweden did illegally rendition two Egyptians to the United States. Also, the Swedish government admitted as much that its previous government had authorized a US black plane to pick up Julian Assange once he'd get extradited back to Sweden.
Saggy pants is still not racist, per se.
It is related to prison culture, and ghetto culture. The association with a specific racial group is a consequence of over expression of incidence in criminality and poverty in that racial group. Jumping straight to the racecard is itself racist; it defacto implies that the saggy pants, and the culture behind it, are intrinsically linked to that racial group. It is equally as onerous as saying "all black people are criminally minded."
Instead, saggy pants is just saggy pants. Complaints about the glorification of prominent displays of saggy pants is not racist, per the above reasoning. Counter-claims that such complaints are racism are themselves what is racist.
You were born with a powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution, for the primary functions of advanced abstract and critical thinking. Please use it responsibly.
Here is a story AP published that turned out to be fiction. It originated with Jon Ralston and was quickly picked up by AP and then other major media outlets. No corroboration ever materialized for the story, despite there being 3000 cameras in the room, and those that streamed live told a different story. The only media outlet to retract the story was NPR, and PBS fired Ralston.
Note also that this is the story that the DNC leadership instructed its members to pass around "without attribution", i.e. covertly smear Sanders with it. It's also the email that Assange has singled out as the most damming.
And also remember that much of the brouhaha over the leaked DNC emails was over collusion with the media.
In short, if you aren't yet skeptical of mainstream media this year, you need to start paying closer attention.
Wikileaks has responded to these allegations:
"No, WikiLeaks did not disclose "gays" to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election."
Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter. Shit happens in war, and it's difficult to tell from the photos. No, it's the helicopter crew lying to their chain of command to receive permission to fire on the van, in clear violation of both international law and the US own rules of engagement at the time that we think is beyond the pale.
Stefan Axelsson